There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with both, to be honest. It baffles me that either are allowed to be carried out in this country.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
What kind of woke nonsense is this? It's forcible "re-migration" or you're a snowflake.
I must be having a weird spasm of “being nice and sensible”
A few days ago you were delighting in British people feeling so scared that they were considering emigrating. People who live, work and raise kids here (and likely hold the kind of secular views you want) - and you were shaking with excitement at the prospect.
If even people from Camden have instincts like that, the kind of limited approach you suggest isn't going to suffice - and nor is a British passport. We've going to have Brit-ICE patrolling the streets with colour swatches.
You’ll have to remind of the moment I was “shaking with excitement” at the idea of a British ICE. And also maybe elaborate on how you could sense this vibration in Scotland given that I am in Southeast Asia and have been for many weeks
Eabhal is very good as misrepresenting people’s views.
I can fish the post out if you want? TSE was particularly aggrieved, as you'd expect. Even malcolmg called it out for what it was, which is saying something.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
Most convenient for SKS.
If the vetting and questions didnt cover potentially illegal activity pertinent to the arrest/investigation (which was ignored) they wouldnt be withheld . Damning for Starmer
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
And the slightly awkward matter of male genital mutilation, which is one those things that I suspect will be viewed with horror in 50+ years time.
(I'm not equating it to FGM, FWIW. It just feels like a topic that doesn't get any attention for some reason)
Looking like Reform is testing a floor of 11% for its vote.
At that rate they would be 5th come the next election.
And there would be much embarrassed gazing at expensive shoes about the wibble over Nigel Farage, Prime MInister.
Maybe Farages absence from the by election snd the 'beauty parade' of polished turds is a sign hes bored already and skipping town soon
Or he realises he is an electoral liability in G&D
If the one man band guy is a liablity there they are coming third
Perhaps Farage doesn't want to be too closely associated to Goodwin?
Thats possible, but why select him?
(conspiracy)
Perhaps it's a la Trump and he wants a rival to lose.
(/conspiracy)
Or the vetting was poor, they hadn't picked up the extent of the eugenics stuff, and his eyes are swiveling more by the day?
Goodwin has eugenics stuff?
Farage is generally trying to shore up his Right, to keep voters and Councillors.
According to the numbers Restore Britain now have 13 Councillors, and I think all are from Reform. It would be 14, but Darren Rance caught his braces around the door handle, and crossed the floor and back again (or at least hopes to).
The corollary to that presumably being short lives to Trump, Vance and all the other Putin appeasers ☠️
On a mildly related note I recall there was unseemly self-pleasuring over the idea that Ukes were shouting God Save the Queen as they fired off their NLAWS, I wonder if it was a mishearing of Slava Ukraini?
Nah, it was God Save The Queen, the other clip that brought a tear to my eye was a Ukrainian army tank commander in 2023 saying how fitting it was that 80 years on British tanks were once again beating Nazis in Kursk.
To be brutally honest the British supplied tanks at Kursk were unlikely to be taking out many Nazi tanks, much like the 14 Challengers.
Don’t buy into the myth of Nazi uber-tanks.
The super heavy stuff was extremely rare and broke down all the time.
And not a few got killed anyway. The first Tiger lost in North Africa was taken out by a British… drum roll.. 6lbr.
What indication was there of me buying into any myth? Empirically the chances of the relatively small number of British tanks with 2lb & 6lb guns taking out lots of German tanks was low compared to the large number of Soviet tanks with 76.2mm, 122mm and 152 mm guns. Afaiaa the largest number of tanks were taken out by Soviet artillery, both a/t and HE barrages.
Looking like Reform is testing a floor of 11% for its vote.
At that rate they would be 5th come the next election.
And there would be much embarrassed gazing at expensive shoes about the wibble over Nigel Farage, Prime MInister.
On the other hand 38% don't view ICE negatively which would be enough for a clear Reform majority if they squeezed DKs and undecideds about ICE. Albeit anti Reform tactical votes could still stop them
Reform have the branding wrong.
I’d wager a whole five pound note if the question was phrased differently and ICE not mentioned the numbers would be more in Reforms favour.
Yes, that seems likely to be true. So, why haven't Reform done that?
I suggest that a core of the Reform vote are bought into the US model of ICE. They specifically want the ICE comparison, the performative cruelty, the "strong man" theory of government, the racism. Referencing "ICE" is red meat to their base.
But, meanwhile there is a broader pool of voters who would respond positively to the idea of deporting the wrong types, but are queasy about Trump's approach. Which I think brings us back to the question of whether it is possible for a populist right-wing party in the UK to put forward a vision that is distinct from Trumpism. What does that look like? Or is the populist right in the UK too dependent on, too entwined with money and ideas from across the Atlantic?
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with both, to be honest. It baffles me that either are allowed to be carried out in this country.
Particularly in a country of apparent animal lovers.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with both, to be honest. It baffles me that either are allowed to be carried out in this country.
I'd suggest the tardiness of politicians on the issue stems from the kosher aspect which makes pols wet their pants at the thought of being called antisemitic if they call for a ban.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with both, to be honest. It baffles me that either are allowed to be carried out in this country.
I'd suggest the tardiness of politicians on the issue stems from the kosher aspect which makes pols wet their pants at the thought of being called antisemitic if they call for a ban.
Halal slaughter is almost all pre-stunned, so indistinguishable from "normal" slaughter.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with both, to be honest. It baffles me that either are allowed to be carried out in this country.
I'd suggest the tardiness of politicians on the issue stems from the kosher aspect which makes pols wet their pants at the thought of being called antisemitic if they call for a ban.
More about customary usage.
Kosher has been around since Edward I was exporting “the wrong kind of immigrants”
Halal has only popped into the popular consciousness recently.
The corollary to that presumably being short lives to Trump, Vance and all the other Putin appeasers ☠️
On a mildly related note I recall there was unseemly self-pleasuring over the idea that Ukes were shouting God Save the Queen as they fired off their NLAWS, I wonder if it was a mishearing of Slava Ukraini?
Nah, it was God Save The Queen, the other clip that brought a tear to my eye was a Ukrainian army tank commander in 2023 saying how fitting it was that 80 years on British tanks were once again beating Nazis in Kursk.
To be brutally honest the British supplied tanks at Kursk were unlikely to be taking out many Nazi tanks, much like the 14 Challengers.
Don’t buy into the myth of Nazi uber-tanks.
The super heavy stuff was extremely rare and broke down all the time.
And not a few got killed anyway. The first Tiger lost in North Africa was taken out by a British… drum roll.. 6lbr.
What indication was there of me buying into any myth? Empirically the chances of the relatively small number of British tanks with 2lb & 6lb guns taking out lots of German tanks was low compared to the large number of Soviet tanks with 76.2mm, 122mm and 152 mm guns. Afaiaa the largest number of tanks were taken out by Soviet artillery, both a/t and HE barrages.
The Su-152 hit something about once a month, in reality.
Most tank kills in most battles, throughout the war, were wheeled anti-tank guns, in ambush. Apart from self-mobility “kills” of course.
And most were side shots, where the armour was about as thick as on Ajax. As Hermann Kahn observed, the enemy always seems to do the most inconvenient things.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with both, to be honest. It baffles me that either are allowed to be carried out in this country.
I'd suggest the tardiness of politicians on the issue stems from the kosher aspect which makes pols wet their pants at the thought of being called antisemitic if they call for a ban.
More about customary usage.
Kosher has been around since Edward I was exporting “the wrong kind of immigrants”
Halal has only popped into the popular consciousness recently.
Though there was no 'customary usage' for 300+ years after Edward I made England Judenfrei.
What is it with the constant press conferences from Politicians? Kemis having one at 11 on social media ban for under 16s
Five party politics means that politicians have to fight harder to win public attention.
Given that Davey is keeping his swimwear in reserve for the next general election campaign, press conferences are the only thing politicians know how to do to get the press to listen to them.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with both, to be honest. It baffles me that either are allowed to be carried out in this country.
I'd suggest the tardiness of politicians on the issue stems from the kosher aspect which makes pols wet their pants at the thought of being called antisemitic if they call for a ban.
Halal slaughter is almost all pre-stunned, so indistinguishable from "normal" slaughter.
Yes, I see you're right there and, to be honest, I quite like the idea of saying a little prayer before slaughter. It shows at least a bit of reverence for the animal whose life you are about to take. What should be banned is slaughter without stunning.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with both, to be honest. It baffles me that either are allowed to be carried out in this country.
I'd suggest the tardiness of politicians on the issue stems from the kosher aspect which makes pols wet their pants at the thought of being called antisemitic if they call for a ban.
More about customary usage.
Kosher has been around since Edward I was exporting “the wrong kind of immigrants”
Halal has only popped into the popular consciousness recently.
Though there was no 'customary usage' for 300+ years after Edward I made England Judenfrei.
Like all such “laws”, about 20 minutes after Eddy stopped being all Reclaim, the Church was complaining about Furrin Jews all over the place…
Looking like Reform is testing a floor of 11% for its vote.
At that rate they would be 5th come the next election.
And there would be much embarrassed gazing at expensive shoes about the wibble over Nigel Farage, Prime MInister.
Maybe Farages absence from the by election snd the 'beauty parade' of polished turds is a sign hes bored already and skipping town soon
Or he realises he is an electoral liability in G&D
If the one man band guy is a liablity there they are coming third
Perhaps Farage doesn't want to be too closely associated to Goodwin?
Thats possible, but why select him?
(conspiracy)
Perhaps it's a la Trump and he wants a rival to lose.
(/conspiracy)
Or the vetting was poor, they hadn't picked up the extent of the eugenics stuff, and his eyes are swiveling more by the day?
Goodwin has eugenics stuff?
Farage is generally trying to shore up his Right, to keep voters and Councillors.
According to the numbers Restore Britain now have 13 Councillors, and I think all are from Reform. It would be 14, but Darren Rance caught his braces around the door handle, and crossed the floor and back again (or at least hopes to).
However, 13 councillors is only approximately 1% of Reform UK's councillor base.
Looking like Reform is testing a floor of 11% for its vote.
At that rate they would be 5th come the next election.
And there would be much embarrassed gazing at expensive shoes about the wibble over Nigel Farage, Prime MInister.
Maybe Farages absence from the by election snd the 'beauty parade' of polished turds is a sign hes bored already and skipping town soon
Or he realises he is an electoral liability in G&D
If the one man band guy is a liablity there they are coming third
Perhaps Farage doesn't want to be too closely associated to Goodwin?
Thats possible, but why select him?
(conspiracy)
Perhaps it's a la Trump and he wants a rival to lose.
(/conspiracy)
Or the vetting was poor, they hadn't picked up the extent of the eugenics stuff, and his eyes are swiveling more by the day?
Goodwin has eugenics stuff?
Farage is generally trying to shore up his Right, to keep voters and Councillors.
According to the numbers Restore Britain now have 13 Councillors, and I think all are from Reform. It would be 14, but Darren Rance caught his braces around the door handle, and crossed the floor and back again (or at least hopes to).
However, 13 councillors is only approximately 1% of Reform UK's councillor base.
What is it with the constant press conferences from Politicians? Kemis having one at 11 on social media ban for under 16s
Five party politics means that politicians have to fight harder to win public attention.
Given that Davey is keeping his swimwear in reserve for the next general election campaign, press conferences are the only thing politicians know how to do to get the press to listen to them.
Partly that. But also:
1. News expands to fill the space available. If your 24 hour non-stop newsathon is short of cash, political press conferences are a reliable and cheap bit of coverage.
2. Conservatives and Reform are irrelevant at Westminster proper, so why bother? The only way anything interesting happens there is if there's a big Labour split.
What is it with the constant press conferences from Politicians? Kemis having one at 11 on social media ban for under 16s
Five party politics means that politicians have to fight harder to win public attention.
Given that Davey is keeping his swimwear in reserve for the next general election campaign, press conferences are the only thing politicians know how to do to get the press to listen to them.
Partly that. But also:
1. News expands to fill the space available. If your 24 hour non-stop newsathon is short of cash, political press conferences are a reliable and cheap bit of coverage.
2. Conservatives and Reform are irrelevant at Westminster proper, so why bother? The only way anything interesting happens there is if there's a big Labour split.
Yes, that's a good point. Creating an easy story for the overworked journalist is a sensible thing to do.
Looking like Reform is testing a floor of 11% for its vote.
At that rate they would be 5th come the next election.
And there would be much embarrassed gazing at expensive shoes about the wibble over Nigel Farage, Prime MInister.
Maybe Farages absence from the by election snd the 'beauty parade' of polished turds is a sign hes bored already and skipping town soon
Or he realises he is an electoral liability in G&D
If the one man band guy is a liablity there they are coming third
Perhaps Farage doesn't want to be too closely associated to Goodwin?
Thats possible, but why select him?
(conspiracy)
Perhaps it's a la Trump and he wants a rival to lose.
(/conspiracy)
Or the vetting was poor, they hadn't picked up the extent of the eugenics stuff, and his eyes are swiveling more by the day?
Goodwin has eugenics stuff?
Farage is generally trying to shore up his Right, to keep voters and Councillors.
According to the numbers Restore Britain now have 13 Councillors, and I think all are from Reform. It would be 14, but Darren Rance caught his braces around the door handle, and crossed the floor and back again (or at least hopes to).
However, 13 councillors is only approximately 1% of Reform UK's councillor base.
What is it with the constant press conferences from Politicians? Kemis having one at 11 on social media ban for under 16s
Five party politics means that politicians have to fight harder to win public attention.
Given that Davey is keeping his swimwear in reserve for the next general election campaign, press conferences are the only thing politicians know how to do to get the press to listen to them.
Partly that. But also:
1. News expands to fill the space available. If your 24 hour non-stop newsathon is short of cash, political press conferences are a reliable and cheap bit of coverage.
2. Conservatives and Reform are irrelevant at Westminster proper, so why bother? The only way anything interesting happens there is if there's a big Labour split.
Conservatives are hardly "irrelevent" at Westminster - they are after all the Official Opposition.
What is it with the constant press conferences from Politicians? Kemis having one at 11 on social media ban for under 16s
Five party politics means that politicians have to fight harder to win public attention.
Given that Davey is keeping his swimwear in reserve for the next general election campaign, press conferences are the only thing politicians know how to do to get the press to listen to them.
Partly that. But also:
1. News expands to fill the space available. If your 24 hour non-stop newsathon is short of cash, political press conferences are a reliable and cheap bit of coverage.
2. Conservatives and Reform are irrelevant at Westminster proper, so why bother? The only way anything interesting happens there is if there's a big Labour split.
So why doesn't (&$%£$^&&*^ &^%^$^& *&%£%$ Starmer have some more of them?
“Every time they look in the mirror, every time they wake up or go to sleep, they look at that mirror, and they say, ‘I should be president, not him.’”
And he said it with a slight smile. But there was nothing funny about it. It was raw paranoia on display for the world to see. And whether the fear was real or imagined, most presidents would have known how dangerous it is to say those words out loud. He didn’t. And the spectacle of what he said then, and the rest of his extended ramblings, deepened the sense that something is profoundly wrong.
It was also on display when he entered the room to the sound of “Pomp and Circumstance,” walking down the red carpet lined with military members and flags, where Melania had to hold his hand tightly, smiling widely to distract from his physical and mental decline. She subtly guided his pace, aligning his path and direction, steadying him when his body seemed stiff and unsure. Her grip was firm in contrast to his careful, almost hobbling movements.
When they reached the table, she was the one who greeted the governors. She shook hands. She carried the conversation. He lingered half a step behind her, his left hand pressed against the small of her back, his right hanging motionless at his side. He looked diminished and smaller than usual. And more than once, you could see concern in the eyes of the people watching him.
As Melania sat down, he made his way over to the podium, where he made that fateful Cabinet remark before continuing with the rest of his speech. In it, he recited the same propaganda lines he’s been repeating for weeks, almost word for word. Which makes sense, since it appears he’s just reading whatever was placed in front of him, instead of acting as the true leader of policy and decision-making.
And what was placed in front of him was embarrassing. Not just for him, but for the country.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with both, to be honest. It baffles me that either are allowed to be carried out in this country.
The logical endpoint of that chain of thought would be a ban on meat or at least a ban on non-free range meat. If we are honest with ourselves the whole process of getting cheap meat onto our plates is cruel.
Doesn't stop me eating it, but I don't mind being hypocritical and bending my morals for an easier life at times.
Looking like Reform is testing a floor of 11% for its vote.
At that rate they would be 5th come the next election.
And there would be much embarrassed gazing at expensive shoes about the wibble over Nigel Farage, Prime MInister.
Maybe Farages absence from the by election snd the 'beauty parade' of polished turds is a sign hes bored already and skipping town soon
Or he realises he is an electoral liability in G&D
If the one man band guy is a liablity there they are coming third
Perhaps Farage doesn't want to be too closely associated to Goodwin?
Thats possible, but why select him?
(conspiracy)
Perhaps it's a la Trump and he wants a rival to lose.
(/conspiracy)
Or the vetting was poor, they hadn't picked up the extent of the eugenics stuff, and his eyes are swiveling more by the day?
Goodwin has eugenics stuff?
Farage is generally trying to shore up his Right, to keep voters and Councillors.
According to the numbers Restore Britain now have 13 Councillors, and I think all are from Reform. It would be 14, but Darren Rance caught his braces around the door handle, and crossed the floor and back again (or at least hopes to).
Byline Times has an article, Goodwin is race science adjacent
Looking like Reform is testing a floor of 11% for its vote.
At that rate they would be 5th come the next election.
And there would be much embarrassed gazing at expensive shoes about the wibble over Nigel Farage, Prime MInister.
Maybe Farages absence from the by election snd the 'beauty parade' of polished turds is a sign hes bored already and skipping town soon
Or he realises he is an electoral liability in G&D
If the one man band guy is a liablity there they are coming third
Perhaps Farage doesn't want to be too closely associated to Goodwin?
Thats possible, but why select him?
(conspiracy)
Perhaps it's a la Trump and he wants a rival to lose.
(/conspiracy)
Or the vetting was poor, they hadn't picked up the extent of the eugenics stuff, and his eyes are swiveling more by the day?
Goodwin has eugenics stuff?
Farage is generally trying to shore up his Right, to keep voters and Councillors.
According to the numbers Restore Britain now have 13 Councillors, and I think all are from Reform. It would be 14, but Darren Rance caught his braces around the door handle, and crossed the floor and back again (or at least hopes to).
Byline Times has an article, Goodwin is race science adjacent
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
If halal slaughter is to be banned, then kosher slaughter should should certainly also be banned. They are both cruel methods, but kosher slaughter is distinctly worse since it forbids stunning before the animal's throat is cut whereas halal slaughter usually permits stunning.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with both, to be honest. It baffles me that either are allowed to be carried out in this country.
For those communities that require them, surely import would fill the need? In the respective countries they do it anyway, so it isn't exporting a problem.
Trump says reports that the Pentagon is warning him against attacking Iran are "100% incorrect," and if the U.S. military goes to war with Iran "it will be something easily won."
So what is the coward waiting for then?
A decision to go to war is not about individual bravery
Indeed, it takes collective bravery to stand up and fight for what is right.
You accused the president of cowardice for debate g a decision to go to war. It’s a decision that needs to be carefully considered and thought through.
Life isn’t black and white
No I did not.
I referred to him as a coward, that was not for debating the decision to go to war, it is based on him being a coward.
As has been demonstrated repeatedly over his long life. He has a lifetime of cowardice.
He is a typical bully. He will pick on anyone he thinks is weak and can't stand up for themselves, but anyone he thinks could fight back he runs a mile from. Always has done.
We see the same with regards to his attitudes to Russia and Ukraine and many more, it is purely par for the course.
What is it with the constant press conferences from Politicians? Kemis having one at 11 on social media ban for under 16s
Five party politics means that politicians have to fight harder to win public attention.
Given that Davey is keeping his swimwear in reserve for the next general election campaign, press conferences are the only thing politicians know how to do to get the press to listen to them.
Partly that. But also:
1. News expands to fill the space available. If your 24 hour non-stop newsathon is short of cash, political press conferences are a reliable and cheap bit of coverage.
2. Conservatives and Reform are irrelevant at Westminster proper, so why bother? The only way anything interesting happens there is if there's a big Labour split.
So why doesn't (&$%£$^&&*^ &^%^$^& *&%£%$ Starmer have some more of them?
He’s consulted the Supreme Court rulings on what the law says. Then said “do that”
What do you expect him to do? Create policies? bring legislation forward? argue the case with the public and his MPs?
Looking like Reform is testing a floor of 11% for its vote.
At that rate they would be 5th come the next election.
And there would be much embarrassed gazing at expensive shoes about the wibble over Nigel Farage, Prime MInister.
Maybe Farages absence from the by election snd the 'beauty parade' of polished turds is a sign hes bored already and skipping town soon
Or he realises he is an electoral liability in G&D
If the one man band guy is a liablity there they are coming third
Perhaps Farage doesn't want to be too closely associated to Goodwin?
Thats possible, but why select him?
(conspiracy)
Perhaps it's a la Trump and he wants a rival to lose.
(/conspiracy)
Or the vetting was poor, they hadn't picked up the extent of the eugenics stuff, and his eyes are swiveling more by the day?
Goodwin has eugenics stuff?
Farage is generally trying to shore up his Right, to keep voters and Councillors.
According to the numbers Restore Britain now have 13 Councillors, and I think all are from Reform. It would be 14, but Darren Rance caught his braces around the door handle, and crossed the floor and back again (or at least hopes to).
Byline Times has an article, Goodwin is race science adjacent
Looking like Reform is testing a floor of 11% for its vote.
At that rate they would be 5th come the next election.
And there would be much embarrassed gazing at expensive shoes about the wibble over Nigel Farage, Prime MInister.
Maybe Farages absence from the by election snd the 'beauty parade' of polished turds is a sign hes bored already and skipping town soon
Or he realises he is an electoral liability in G&D
If the one man band guy is a liablity there they are coming third
Perhaps Farage doesn't want to be too closely associated to Goodwin?
Thats possible, but why select him?
(conspiracy)
Perhaps it's a la Trump and he wants a rival to lose.
(/conspiracy)
Or the vetting was poor, they hadn't picked up the extent of the eugenics stuff, and his eyes are swiveling more by the day?
Goodwin has eugenics stuff?
Farage is generally trying to shore up his Right, to keep voters and Councillors.
According to the numbers Restore Britain now have 13 Councillors, and I think all are from Reform. It would be 14, but Darren Rance caught his braces around the door handle, and crossed the floor and back again (or at least hopes to).
Byline Times has an article, Goodwin is race science adjacent
Byline Times. 🙄
It's more credible journalism than a lot of the links posted here, in this case it's publically available info on academics and groups he's worked with or is associated to
It strikes me that Reform and their propaganda wings at GB News, Mail, Express are utterly desperate for a week of calm weather so that their live cameras in France and Dover can spread the news of INVASION and whip the delinquent bone heads in to a renewed state of frenzy
This bad weather that is after all by far the biggest factor in figures must be so fucking annoying for them
6 more months of force 5 and above would be brilliant news.
It shouldn't really be a choice between relentless miserable weather and a conveyer belt of pretend asylum seekers.
If only there were another way
If Starmer turned out to be a techno-wizard genius with the power to control the weather, such that when he said he was going to, "smash the gangs," the unspoken part was that he was going to, "smash the gangs with my awesome control of Atlantic depressions," it would be kinda ironic if he lost the next general election anyway because of the feel-bad factor of relentless bad weather.
If then can put chemicals atop clouds to turn desert in to lush grass on Middle East is it too much to ask the RAF and French Air force to have continued torrential rain along Normandy Coast and wave machines offshore.
What is it with the constant press conferences from Politicians? Kemis having one at 11 on social media ban for under 16s
Same with Urgent questions on the same topics day after day
All designed to waste parliamentary time.
Frankly parliament is an outdated venue for politicians to record their media clips and should be replaced with a modern facility with dedicated podcast studios and a choice of backdrops for set pieces.
Just seen the best four frames of snooker from any player. 53 minutes four frames four centuries didn't miss a ball. Or even hit the jaws. Chang Bingyu. Will be World Champion some day.
We’ve identified industrial-scale distillation attacks on our models by DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax.
These labs created over 24,000 fraudulent accounts and generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude, extracting its capabilities to train and improve their own models. https://x.com/AnthropicAI/status/2025997928242811253
We’ve identified industrial-scale distillation attacks on our models by DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax.
These labs created over 24,000 fraudulent accounts and generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude, extracting its capabilities to train and improve their own models. https://x.com/AnthropicAI/status/2025997928242811253
Lol. Imagine, seeking to profit from stealing someone else's intellectual property! How very dare they.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
We’ve identified industrial-scale distillation attacks on our models by DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax.
These labs created over 24,000 fraudulent accounts and generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude, extracting its capabilities to train and improve their own models. https://x.com/AnthropicAI/status/2025997928242811253
Lol, no, I imagine not. Given that they used material created by everyone else to train their models, they should not expect any either.
We’ve identified industrial-scale distillation attacks on our models by DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax.
These labs created over 24,000 fraudulent accounts and generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude, extracting its capabilities to train and improve their own models. https://x.com/AnthropicAI/status/2025997928242811253
So a company stealing intellectual property has the results of their theft stolen?
We’ve identified industrial-scale distillation attacks on our models by DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax.
These labs created over 24,000 fraudulent accounts and generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude, extracting its capabilities to train and improve their own models. https://x.com/AnthropicAI/status/2025997928242811253
Lol. Imagine, seeking to profit from stealing someone else's intellectual property! How very dare they.
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
Re Assisted Dying, it's one of those things where I genuinely find it hard to decide what is the proper course of action. But, some of the comments made by the current bill's proponents are alarming.
Re Assisted Dying, it's one of those things where I genuinely find it hard to decide what is the proper course of action. But, some of the comments made by the current bill's proponents are alarming.
Also look at the stories coming out of Canada, for an idea of just how badly this law can end up being in practice.
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Who then went on to support Trump in 2024 ! Not sure how Johnson can both support Ukraine and a Russian puppet at the same time .
Just seen the best four frames of snooker from any player. 53 minutes four frames four centuries didn't miss a ball. Or even hit the jaws. Chang Bingyu. Will be World Champion some day.
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Who then went on to support Trump in 2024 ! Not sure how Johnson can both support Ukraine and a Russian puppet at the same time .
If he’d backed Kamala, Trump wouldn’t give him the time of day now. How would that have been better for Ukraine?
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Who then went on to support Trump in 2024 ! Not sure how Johnson can both support Ukraine and a Russian puppet at the same time .
You are surely not expecting logical thought from Boris Johnson. He's like Trump; (and, perchance) Starmer. Has totally different, and often contrasting, priorities every hour of the day.
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Who then went on to support Trump in 2024 ! Not sure how Johnson can both support Ukraine and a Russian puppet at the same time .
If he’d backed Kamala, Trump wouldn’t give him the time of day now. How would that have been better for Ukraine?
Kamala wouldn’t have sold out Ukraine . And Johnson has achieved a big fat zero in terms of influencing Trump since he got elected .
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
The fact that people can't even see how dangerous this sort of agenda is is what is scary to me, as @kinabalu points out. With reference to the Third Reich, the persecution of the Jews did not start with the gas chambers. It started with small measures designed to mark out a minority group as different, inferior and subject tobparticular state surveillance and control. Of course, if you have concerns about animal welfare pursue those, but not as a proxy for an attack on a specific religious group. If you think religious practitioners need a state license go ahead, but it needs to be applied across all religions. I would hope FGM and so called honour crimes are already being persecuted aggressively as they are illegal. Sharia courts are religious bodies that people voluntarily make recourse to on matters of marriage etc. Madrassas are Sunday schools where children are taught the Koran. What is the case that the state needs to be prohibiting these activities specifically for Muslims, in a society that otherwise supports freedom of religion?
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
How very convenient for Starmer
Coukd it be challenged in Court
Yes to the extent that someone with an interest could apply for leave to bring an action but they would fail.
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Well I never, another Ukrainista who simultaneously rims Trump & co.
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Who then went on to support Trump in 2024 ! Not sure how Johnson can both support Ukraine and a Russian puppet at the same time .
If he’d backed Kamala, Trump wouldn’t give him the time of day now. How would that have been better for Ukraine?
What time of day is Trump giving Boris atm, just so we can judge what value Boris has transacted out of the deal?
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Isn't it? It's explicitly targetting a particular community, Muslims, just as the Fourth Reich explicitly targetted Jews, first in small ways and then in bigger ways.
Let's consider the proposal to close down madrasas. A madrasa is an educational instutition: the Arabic word means any educational institution, but presumably the context here is an Islamic religious school. Jewish religious schools are called beth midrash: "midrash" and "madrasa" have the same Semitic etymology. What happened to them under the Nazis? In Feb 1939, all Jewish organisations were dissolved and forced to merge into the Nazi-controlled Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland. Most beth midrash had already been destroyed in Kristallnacht in 1938. Jewish religious texts had been destroyed in the mass book burnings of 1933. I'm seeing similarities here.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
There will be quite a lot of very powerful people who would be delighted if both Mr A M-W's and Mandelson's matters failed to go ahead for reasons of procedure, jurisdiction, prejudice (including media and social media coverage), state security, delay or any other reason, preventing the entire of the evidence reaching the public eye, and preventing potential defendants calling and giving whatever evidence they wish, with absolute privilege.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Certainly fiercely prosecute FGM; it's a cruel practice among certain cultures, not specifically a Muslim one. AIUI many Muslims are as opposed to it as Westerners. And certainly discourage at least cousin marriage; the consequent genetic problems are obvious. I do think that burqa and niqab wearing should be at least heavily discouraged among people in public-facing jobs, particularly the NHS.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
The fact that people can't even see how dangerous this sort of agenda is is what is scary to me, as @kinabalu points out. With reference to the Third Reich, the persecution of the Jews did not start with the gas chambers. It started with small measures designed to mark out a minority group as different, inferior and subject tobparticular state surveillance and control. Of course, if you have concerns about animal welfare pursue those, but not as a proxy for an attack on a specific religious group. If you think religious practitioners need a state license go ahead, but it needs to be applied across all religions. I would hope FGM and so called honour crimes are already being persecuted aggressively as they are illegal. Sharia courts are religious bodies that people voluntarily make recourse to on matters of marriage etc. Madrassas are Sunday schools where children are taught the Koran. What is the case that the state needs to be prohibiting these activities specifically for Muslims, in a society that otherwise supports freedom of religion?
The persecution of the Jews started with boycotts, casual murder and beatings in the streets, summary detention in concentrations camps (along with communists, socialists, the asocial), dismissal from a range of occupations, and removal of citizenship.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Who then went on to support Trump in 2024 ! Not sure how Johnson can both support Ukraine and a Russian puppet at the same time .
If he’d backed Kamala, Trump wouldn’t give him the time of day now. How would that have been better for Ukraine?
Given Trump's actual treatment of Ukraine, how would that have made any difference at all to Ukraine ?
Oh, and btw that quote you were dinging Newsom for recently is - from his book, and was almost exactly what he said to Charlie Kirk when they had their chat.
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Well I never, another Ukrainista who simultaneously rims Trump & co.
I assume his KGN handler has approved this statement or will he require another trip to Italy for guidance.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Satire should be more subtle than this.
Its degree of subtlety is carefully modelled on TSE's puns.
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Who then went on to support Trump in 2024 ! Not sure how Johnson can both support Ukraine and a Russian puppet at the same time .
If he’d backed Kamala, Trump wouldn’t give him the time of day now. How would that have been better for Ukraine?
Kamala wouldn’t have sold out Ukraine . And Johnson has achieved a big fat zero in terms of influencing Trump since he got elected .
At best Kamala would have been continuity Biden, which meant slow-walking aid and doing the minimum possible to prevent escalation.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Wider than the specific Sharia aspect, is that increasingly people in dispute are being encouraged / coerced by the state to agree mediated settlements for child custody, access and finances, which is advantageous for the more coercive partner and that can't be easily enforced when one party doesn't abide by the settlement.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
The fact that people can't even see how dangerous this sort of agenda is is what is scary to me, as @kinabalu points out. With reference to the Third Reich, the persecution of the Jews did not start with the gas chambers. It started with small measures designed to mark out a minority group as different, inferior and subject tobparticular state surveillance and control. Of course, if you have concerns about animal welfare pursue those, but not as a proxy for an attack on a specific religious group. If you think religious practitioners need a state license go ahead, but it needs to be applied across all religions. I would hope FGM and so called honour crimes are already being persecuted aggressively as they are illegal. Sharia courts are religious bodies that people voluntarily make recourse to on matters of marriage etc. Madrassas are Sunday schools where children are taught the Koran. What is the case that the state needs to be prohibiting these activities specifically for Muslims, in a society that otherwise supports freedom of religion?
The persecution of the Jews started with boycotts, casual murder and beatings in the streets, summary detention in concentrations camps (along with communists, socialists, the asocial), dismissal from a range of occupations, and removal of citizenship.
Yeah, but that was almost all after the Nazis came to power.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Who then went on to support Trump in 2024 ! Not sure how Johnson can both support Ukraine and a Russian puppet at the same time .
If he’d backed Kamala, Trump wouldn’t give him the time of day now. How would that have been better for Ukraine?
Kamala wouldn’t have sold out Ukraine . And Johnson has achieved a big fat zero in terms of influencing Trump since he got elected .
At best Kamala would have been continuity Biden, which meant slow-walking aid and doing the minimum possible to prevent escalation.
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
Comments
Damning for Starmer
(I'm not equating it to FGM, FWIW. It just feels like a topic that doesn't get any attention for some reason)
Farage is generally trying to shore up his Right, to keep voters and Councillors.
According to the numbers Restore Britain now have 13 Councillors, and I think all are from Reform. It would be 14, but Darren Rance caught his braces around the door handle, and crossed the floor and back again (or at least hopes to).
I suggest that a core of the Reform vote are bought into the US model of ICE. They specifically want the ICE comparison, the performative cruelty, the "strong man" theory of government, the racism. Referencing "ICE" is red meat to their base.
But, meanwhile there is a broader pool of voters who would respond positively to the idea of deporting the wrong types, but are queasy about Trump's approach. Which I think brings us back to the question of whether it is possible for a populist right-wing party in the UK to put forward a vision that is distinct from Trumpism. What does that look like? Or is the populist right in the UK too dependent on, too entwined with money and ideas from across the Atlantic?
Kemis having one at 11 on social media ban for under 16s
Kosher has been around since Edward I was exporting “the wrong kind of immigrants”
Halal has only popped into the popular consciousness recently.
Most tank kills in most battles, throughout the war, were wheeled anti-tank guns, in ambush. Apart from self-mobility “kills” of course.
And most were side shots, where the armour was about as thick as on Ajax. As Hermann Kahn observed, the enemy always seems to do the most inconvenient things.
Given that Davey is keeping his swimwear in reserve for the next general election campaign, press conferences are the only thing politicians know how to do to get the press to listen to them.
1. News expands to fill the space available. If your 24 hour non-stop newsathon is short of cash, political press conferences are a reliable and cheap bit of coverage.
2. Conservatives and Reform are irrelevant at Westminster proper, so why bother? The only way anything interesting happens there is if there's a big Labour split.
And he said it with a slight smile. But there was nothing funny about it. It was raw paranoia on display for the world to see. And whether the fear was real or imagined, most presidents would have known how dangerous it is to say those words out loud. He didn’t. And the spectacle of what he said then, and the rest of his extended ramblings, deepened the sense that something is profoundly wrong.
It was also on display when he entered the room to the sound of “Pomp and Circumstance,” walking down the red carpet lined with military members and flags, where Melania had to hold his hand tightly, smiling widely to distract from his physical and mental decline. She subtly guided his pace, aligning his path and direction, steadying him when his body seemed stiff and unsure. Her grip was firm in contrast to his careful, almost hobbling movements.
When they reached the table, she was the one who greeted the governors. She shook hands. She carried the conversation. He lingered half a step behind her, his left hand pressed against the small of her back, his right hanging motionless at his side. He looked diminished and smaller than usual. And more than once, you could see concern in the eyes of the people watching him.
As Melania sat down, he made his way over to the podium, where he made that fateful Cabinet remark before continuing with the rest of his speech. In it, he recited the same propaganda lines he’s been repeating for weeks, almost word for word. Which makes sense, since it appears he’s just reading whatever was placed in front of him, instead of acting as the true leader of policy and decision-making.
And what was placed in front of him was embarrassing. Not just for him, but for the country.
https://heatherdelaneyreese.substack.com/p/does-the-president-even-know-what
Doesn't stop me eating it, but I don't mind being hypocritical and bending my morals for an easier life at times.
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
I referred to him as a coward, that was not for debating the decision to go to war, it is based on him being a coward.
As has been demonstrated repeatedly over his long life. He has a lifetime of cowardice.
He is a typical bully. He will pick on anyone he thinks is weak and can't stand up for themselves, but anyone he thinks could fight back he runs a mile from. Always has done.
We see the same with regards to his attitudes to Russia and Ukraine and many more, it is purely par for the course.
https://x.com/maria_drutska/status/2025946151153778870
What do you expect him to do? Create policies? bring legislation forward? argue the case with the public and his MPs?
I think he’s moved in?
Race Science is definitely a HMO.
All designed to waste parliamentary time.
https://x.com/wingsscotland/status/2025887500191899810?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Chang Bingyu. Will be World Champion some day.
We’ve identified industrial-scale distillation attacks on our models by DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax.
These labs created over 24,000 fraudulent accounts and generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude, extracting its capabilities to train and improve their own models.
https://x.com/AnthropicAI/status/2025997928242811253
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
Oh Dear. How Sad. Never Mind.
His number one priority is stating his number one priority. Which is his number one priority.
https://x.com/borisjohnson/status/2026203282025132184
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Sigh
His number one priority is stating his number one priority.
Not enacting his number one priority.
And Good Morning, (just) to everyone.
Of course, if you have concerns about animal welfare pursue those, but not as a proxy for an attack on a specific religious group. If you think religious practitioners need a state license go ahead, but it needs to be applied across all religions. I would hope FGM and so called honour crimes are already being persecuted aggressively as they are illegal. Sharia courts are religious bodies that people voluntarily make recourse to on matters of marriage etc. Madrassas are Sunday schools where children are taught the Koran. What is the case that the state needs to be prohibiting these activities specifically for Muslims, in a society that otherwise supports freedom of religion?
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
Let's consider the proposal to close down madrasas. A madrasa is an educational instutition: the Arabic word means any educational institution, but presumably the context here is an Islamic religious school. Jewish religious schools are called beth midrash: "midrash" and "madrasa" have the same Semitic etymology. What happened to them under the Nazis? In Feb 1939, all Jewish organisations were dissolved and forced to merge into the Nazi-controlled Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland. Most beth midrash had already been destroyed in Kristallnacht in 1938. Jewish religious texts had been destroyed in the mass book burnings of 1933. I'm seeing similarities here.
I do think that burqa and niqab wearing should be at least heavily discouraged among people in public-facing jobs, particularly the NHS.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
Oh, and btw that quote you were dinging Newsom for recently is -
from his book, and was almost exactly what he said to Charlie Kirk when they had their chat.
So no, it is not his "message to Black people".
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
Like your new colleague? Yeah, he was a shit housing minister.
Number one priority. Right, done that. New number one priority. Right, done that too. New number one priority...
(Ignore that some of them seem to pop up again)
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/2026266348624413016
https://theconversation.com/sharia-law-isnt-taking-over-britain-its-an-inevitable-legacy-of-its-colonial-legal-history-267262
Wider than the specific Sharia aspect, is that increasingly people in dispute are being encouraged / coerced by the state to agree mediated settlements for child custody, access and finances, which is advantageous for the more coercive partner and that can't be easily enforced when one party doesn't abide by the settlement.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
Right, lets get some lunch
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
It is quite the best way to deal with this