Full marks for creativity to Umesh Kumar, who put in nomination papers to stand for Hounslow council in Heston East ward for the Lib Dems - and also to stand in Heston West ward for Reform UK. Unfortunately multiple candidacies aren't allowed these days, and he's been disqualified in both wards.
Obviously, this wouldn't happen in a well-run system. However, at local level most political parties are administered by three enthusiastic amateurs, one of whom might be able to operate the computer.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
Oh, I agree, but I also support a Palestinian State (as indeed does our government). A 2 state solution is the only alternative to the genocide of one or other people.
The Iranians don't seem to realize they have no cards, other than a short term extortion of the World by using International Waterways. The only reason they are alive today is to negotiate! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Isn't that comment just admitting they do have a powerful card? Sure, he says it is a short term one, but it doesn't seem to say anything and doesn't even contain his characteristic bizarre rants.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
Those US troops and sailors are going to shortly be sat there on the edges of Iran, polishing their guns and waiting in broiling heat they are not used to:
Extreme Temperatures Around The World @extremetemps HARSH MIDDLE EAST HEAT WAVE COMING
A Fierce heat wave is looming in Middle East with Temperatures expected to rise up to 45C after mid month and break several records. The heat wave will move from West (originating in Sudan) to East.
Under the heading of they must know its going to be shit ...
Just scanned the Nominations for the May 7th County Elections locally. Full slate for Conservatives, Reform, LibDems and Greens. Labour only contesting 85% of seats. As it's a true blue area with shades of Gails, the Reform result will be interesting as they have barely made any inroads here up to now. So Labour not even putting up paper candidates.
If it is a true blue area is it unusual for Labour not to put up a full slate there? They never have in my lifetime in places like Wiltshire.
Someone has already done the sums;
🚨 2026 LOCAL ELECTIONS TOTAL NUMBER OF SEATS CONTESTED (/2952):
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
The crux of the matter in my opinion has always been that because of the horror and depravity of the Holocaust, Israel was always given leeway in its defence and military outlook, that other States were not given.
A sort of unwritten code, we can't penalise Israel, because we carry a shared guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen.
While Israel was led by less extreme people than Netanyahu, and while the extremists were on the Arab side, that leeway seemed acceptable.
However, when Netanyahu starts to act like Hitler, in Gaza in the West Bank, in Labanon, and clearly overstep the line in to war criminality, that rope/leeway has snapped.
The US have always back Israel, wharever they do, in the UK Pritti Patel Badenoch, Farage will bend over backwards in utter denial of the criminality of Netanyahu.
Starmer acted too late to recognise a Palestinian State, but act he has. He now needs to do what the majority want. Ostracise Israel until there is suitable regime trade, stop all military and diplomatic ties.All for Israel, like Russia to be barred from IOC, Fifa, Euro vision etc, call from the ridiculous permissions Israel has with European bodies.
The default of the Zionists will always be the anti semitism card, it is a defence mired in lies and distortions.
Starmer and any future UK PM has to find the balance, to have no truck with the Zionists but to protect all peace living Jews from the horrors of anti semitism
That is a massive and urgent education lesson and that must also come from UK Jews who are not Zionists who do not support the current evil Israeli Government.
Full marks for creativity to Umesh Kumar, who put in nomination papers to stand for Hounslow council in Heston East ward for the Lib Dems - and also to stand in Heston West ward for Reform UK. Unfortunately multiple candidacies aren't allowed these days, and he's been disqualified in both wards.
Obviously, this wouldn't happen in a well-run system. However, at local level most political parties are administered by three enthusiastic amateurs, one of whom might be able to operate the computer.
There's a few people, more at parish level probably, who haven't caught up with withdrawal deadlines not being after nomination deadlines - most parishes are still uncontested, but I've seen cases where they try to pull out as one more person than the council intended stood, thus causing an election...which they have to pay for.
Under the heading of they must know its going to be shit ...
Just scanned the Nominations for the May 7th County Elections locally. Full slate for Conservatives, Reform, LibDems and Greens. Labour only contesting 85% of seats. As it's a true blue area with shades of Gails, the Reform result will be interesting as they have barely made any inroads here up to now. So Labour not even putting up paper candidates.
If it is a true blue area is it unusual for Labour not to put up a full slate there? They never have in my lifetime in places like Wiltshire.
Someone has already done the sums;
🚨 2026 LOCAL ELECTIONS TOTAL NUMBER OF SEATS CONTESTED (/2952):
Interesting list of far left parties Corbyn's Your Party set to purge from its ranks this weekend. Wonder how many members will be left once they've all been booted? Nb, No Your Party candidates have been nominated to stand in May's council elections in Corbyn's Islington.
Interesting list of far left parties Corbyn's Your Party set to purge from its ranks this weekend. Wonder how many members will be left once they've all been booted? Nb, No Your Party candidates have been nominated to stand in May's council elections in Corbyn's Islington.
If not for Sultana YP would likely never have been announced (given she jumped the gun before Corbyn was ready, he seems to have dragged his feet on doing it for years), but it was too late for them with the Greens rising higher. The chaotic start didn't help any either (it is hard to start a new party in fairness), and while they are new and it takes time to grow, is there space for them?
Interesting list of far left parties Corbyn's Your Party set to purge from its ranks this weekend. Wonder how many members will be left once they've all been booted? Nb, No Your Party candidates have been nominated to stand in May's council elections in Corbyn's Islington.
If not for Sultana YP would likely never have been announced (given she jumped the gun before Corbyn was ready, he seems to have dragged his feet on doing it for years), but it was too late for them with the Greens rising higher. The chaotic start didn't help any either (it is hard to start a new party in fairness), and while they are new and it takes time to grow, is there space for them?
"Lord Peter Mandelson is set to be fined up to £300 for public urination in London, however Kensington and Chelsea council is unable to find a suitable address to send the fixed penalty notice to."
Interesting list of far left parties Corbyn's Your Party set to purge from its ranks this weekend. Wonder how many members will be left once they've all been booted? Nb, No Your Party candidates have been nominated to stand in May's council elections in Corbyn's Islington.
The Iranians don't seem to realize they have no cards, other than a short term extortion of the World by using International Waterways. The only reason they are alive today is to negotiate! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Erm...they had one strong card and they played it exactly as anyone else would. I'm not surprised his casino went bust.
Interesting list of far left parties Corbyn's Your Party set to purge from its ranks this weekend. Wonder how many members will be left once they've all been booted? Nb, No Your Party candidates have been nominated to stand in May's council elections in Corbyn's Islington.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
The crux of the matter in my opinion has always been that because of the horror and depravity of the Holocaust, Israel was always given leeway in its defence and military outlook, that other States were not given.
A sort of unwritten code, we can't penalise Israel, because we carry a shared guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen.
While Israel was led by less extreme people than Netanyahu, and while the extremists were on the Arab side, that leeway seemed acceptable.
However, when Netanyahu starts to act like Hitler, in Gaza in the West Bank, in Labanon, and clearly overstep the line in to war criminality, that rope/leeway has snapped.
The US have always back Israel, wharever they do, in the UK Pritti Patel Badenoch, Farage will bend over backwards in utter denial of the criminality of Netanyahu.
Starmer acted too late to recognise a Palestinian State, but act he has. He now needs to do what the majority want. Ostracise Israel until there is suitable regime trade, stop all military and diplomatic ties.All for Israel, like Russia to be barred from IOC, Fifa, Euro vision etc, call from the ridiculous permissions Israel has with European bodies.
The default of the Zionists will always be the anti semitism card, it is a defence mired in lies and distortions.
Starmer and any future UK PM has to find the balance, to have no truck with the Zionists but to protect all peace living Jews from the horrors of anti semitism
That is a massive and urgent education lesson and that must also come from UK Jews who are not Zionists who do not support the current evil Israeli Government.
I assume you don’t think we should trade with China either then.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
The crux of the matter in my opinion has always been that because of the horror and depravity of the Holocaust, Israel was always given leeway in its defence and military outlook, that other States were not given.
A sort of unwritten code, we can't penalise Israel, because we carry a shared guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen.
While Israel was led by less extreme people than Netanyahu, and while the extremists were on the Arab side, that leeway seemed acceptable.
However, when Netanyahu starts to act like Hitler, in Gaza in the West Bank, in Labanon, and clearly overstep the line in to war criminality, that rope/leeway has snapped.
The US have always back Israel, wharever they do, in the UK Pritti Patel Badenoch, Farage will bend over backwards in utter denial of the criminality of Netanyahu.
Starmer acted too late to recognise a Palestinian State, but act he has. He now needs to do what the majority want. Ostracise Israel until there is suitable regime trade, stop all military and diplomatic ties.All for Israel, like Russia to be barred from IOC, Fifa, Euro vision etc, call from the ridiculous permissions Israel has with European bodies.
The default of the Zionists will always be the anti semitism card, it is a defence mired in lies and distortions.
Starmer and any future UK PM has to find the balance, to have no truck with the Zionists but to protect all peace living Jews from the horrors of anti semitism
That is a massive and urgent education lesson and that must also come from UK Jews who are not Zionists who do not support the current evil Israeli Government.
To be fair I do remember some very well supported Jewish protests against Israeli actions in the US a few years ago.
And of course in the UK, Zack Polanski is Jewish and is strongly opposed to recent Israeli actions.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
The crux of the matter in my opinion has always been that because of the horror and depravity of the Holocaust, Israel was always given leeway in its defence and military outlook, that other States were not given.
A sort of unwritten code, we can't penalise Israel, because we carry a shared guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen.
While Israel was led by less extreme people than Netanyahu, and while the extremists were on the Arab side, that leeway seemed acceptable.
However, when Netanyahu starts to act like Hitler, in Gaza in the West Bank, in Labanon, and clearly overstep the line in to war criminality, that rope/leeway has snapped.
The US have always back Israel, wharever they do, in the UK Pritti Patel Badenoch, Farage will bend over backwards in utter denial of the criminality of Netanyahu.
Starmer acted too late to recognise a Palestinian State, but act he has. He now needs to do what the majority want. Ostracise Israel until there is suitable regime trade, stop all military and diplomatic ties.All for Israel, like Russia to be barred from IOC, Fifa, Euro vision etc, call from the ridiculous permissions Israel has with European bodies.
The default of the Zionists will always be the anti semitism card, it is a defence mired in lies and distortions.
Starmer and any future UK PM has to find the balance, to have no truck with the Zionists but to protect all peace living Jews from the horrors of anti semitism
That is a massive and urgent education lesson and that must also come from UK Jews who are not Zionists who do not support the current evil Israeli Government.
Not one word in that piece condemning Hamas for its attack that started this conflict, nor Iran's and Hezbollah attacks either, so a one sided narrative
Netanyahu, the leaders of Iran, Hezoballah, Hamas all have innocent blood on their hands, and they all the should face war crimes and we must not forget the 40,000 Iranians recently slaughted by their regime who need a voice
"Lord Peter Mandelson is set to be fined up to £300 for public urination in London, however Kensington and Chelsea council is unable to find a suitable address to send the fixed penalty notice to."
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
The crux of the matter in my opinion has always been that because of the horror and depravity of the Holocaust, Israel was always given leeway in its defence and military outlook, that other States were not given.
A sort of unwritten code, we can't penalise Israel, because we carry a shared guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen.
While Israel was led by less extreme people than Netanyahu, and while the extremists were on the Arab side, that leeway seemed acceptable.
However, when Netanyahu starts to act like Hitler, in Gaza in the West Bank, in Labanon, and clearly overstep the line in to war criminality, that rope/leeway has snapped.
The US have always back Israel, wharever they do, in the UK Pritti Patel Badenoch, Farage will bend over backwards in utter denial of the criminality of Netanyahu.
Starmer acted too late to recognise a Palestinian State, but act he has. He now needs to do what the majority want. Ostracise Israel until there is suitable regime trade, stop all military and diplomatic ties.All for Israel, like Russia to be barred from IOC, Fifa, Euro vision etc, call from the ridiculous permissions Israel has with European bodies.
The default of the Zionists will always be the anti semitism card, it is a defence mired in lies and distortions.
Starmer and any future UK PM has to find the balance, to have no truck with the Zionists but to protect all peace living Jews from the horrors of anti semitism
That is a massive and urgent education lesson and that must also come from UK Jews who are not Zionists who do not support the current evil Israeli Government.
I am a Zionist. I support the right of Israel to exist. I am shocked and disgusted that Jews in the UK are targeted and feel unsafe.
That does not -however- mean the Israel government has not behaved incredibly poorly, partcularly in the West Bank, over the last several years.
It's really simple, to my mind. Do you wish to treat all the inhabitants of the region: Jew, Muslim, Druze, Christian, or whatever, as equally and fairly as possible? Or do you believe that one group should have primacy for some reason?
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
The crux of the matter in my opinion has always been that because of the horror and depravity of the Holocaust, Israel was always given leeway in its defence and military outlook, that other States were not given.
A sort of unwritten code, we can't penalise Israel, because we carry a shared guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen.
While Israel was led by less extreme people than Netanyahu, and while the extremists were on the Arab side, that leeway seemed acceptable.
However, when Netanyahu starts to act like Hitler, in Gaza in the West Bank, in Labanon, and clearly overstep the line in to war criminality, that rope/leeway has snapped.
The US have always back Israel, wharever they do, in the UK Pritti Patel Badenoch, Farage will bend over backwards in utter denial of the criminality of Netanyahu.
Starmer acted too late to recognise a Palestinian State, but act he has. He now needs to do what the majority want. Ostracise Israel until there is suitable regime trade, stop all military and diplomatic ties.All for Israel, like Russia to be barred from IOC, Fifa, Euro vision etc, call from the ridiculous permissions Israel has with European bodies.
The default of the Zionists will always be the anti semitism card, it is a defence mired in lies and distortions.
Starmer and any future UK PM has to find the balance, to have no truck with the Zionists but to protect all peace living Jews from the horrors of anti semitism
That is a massive and urgent education lesson and that must also come from UK Jews who are not Zionists who do not support the current evil Israeli Government.
I am a Zionist. I support the right of Israel to exist. I am shocked and disgusted that Jews in the UK are targeted and feel unsafe.
That does not -however- mean the Israel government has not behaved incredibly poorly, partcularly in the West Bank, over the last several years.
It's really simple, to my mind. Do you wish to treat all the inhabitants of the region: Jew, Muslim, Druze, Christian, or whatever, as equally and fairly as possible? Or do you believe that one group should have primacy for some reason?
There are some complexities to the whole debate, to be sure, but it is not as complicated on all parts as people pretend.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
Do you not have even a few qualms supporting a country where parlimentarians celebrated that law being passed with champagne, while wearing noose shaped lapel pins?
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
Do you not have even a few qualms supporting a country where parlimentarians celebrated that law being passed with champagne, while wearing noose shaped lapel pins?
I don’t “support” a country. It’s not a football team. I think those guys are absolute tosspots. That said, maybe one day I will need to rely on the safe haven of the Jewish state so I want it to be there and a safe place for jews.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
Do you not have even a few qualms supporting a country where parlimentarians celebrated that law being passed with champagne, while wearing noose shaped lapel pins?
I don’t “support” a country. It’s not a football team. I think those guys are absolute tosspots. That said, maybe one day I will need to rely on the safe haven of the Jewish state so I want it to be there and a safe place for jews.
What sort of country is it that is such a "safe space" built on graves? How can it be safe for anyone with those sorts of people in power?
"Lord Peter Mandelson is set to be fined up to £300 for public urination in London, however Kensington and Chelsea council is unable to find a suitable address to send the fixed penalty notice to."
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
Do you not have even a few qualms supporting a country where parlimentarians celebrated that law being passed with champagne, while wearing noose shaped lapel pins?
I don’t “support” a country. It’s not a football team. I think those guys are absolute tosspots. That said, maybe one day I will need to rely on the safe haven of the Jewish state so I want it to be there and a safe place for jews.
I think people really underestimate how dangerous it would be for jews if it did not exist, putting too much of the hatred out there as being a result of Israeli government and military action. Whilst certainly that has driven a lot of justifiable criticism of Israel, I think there is very high levels of latent antisemitism remaining in most societies which has nothing to do with being a consequence of Israel doing specific things. Focusing understandably on the bad things of here and now, and downplaying the catastrophic situation that would arise if there was no Israel at all. When Israel overreacts and hurts others it must be called out, but their existential fear is justified and real, but people treat it as almost not worth considering.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
Do you not have even a few qualms supporting a country where parlimentarians celebrated that law being passed with champagne, while wearing noose shaped lapel pins?
I don’t “support” a country. It’s not a football team. I think those guys are absolute tosspots. That said, maybe one day I will need to rely on the safe haven of the Jewish state so I want it to be there and a safe place for jews.
What sort of country is it that is such a "safe space" built on graves? How can it be safe for anyone with those sorts of people in power?
Well, when the alternative is the pogrom or the holocaust…
Anyway. Every country is built on graves. England was built on graves. It’s just that Israel is a much newer country.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
The crux of the matter in my opinion has always been that because of the horror and depravity of the Holocaust, Israel was always given leeway in its defence and military outlook, that other States were not given.
A sort of unwritten code, we can't penalise Israel, because we carry a shared guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen.
While Israel was led by less extreme people than Netanyahu, and while the extremists were on the Arab side, that leeway seemed acceptable.
However, when Netanyahu starts to act like Hitler, in Gaza in the West Bank, in Labanon, and clearly overstep the line in to war criminality, that rope/leeway has snapped.
The US have always back Israel, wharever they do, in the UK Pritti Patel Badenoch, Farage will bend over backwards in utter denial of the criminality of Netanyahu.
Starmer acted too late to recognise a Palestinian State, but act he has. He now needs to do what the majority want. Ostracise Israel until there is suitable regime trade, stop all military and diplomatic ties.All for Israel, like Russia to be barred from IOC, Fifa, Euro vision etc, call from the ridiculous permissions Israel has with European bodies.
The default of the Zionists will always be the anti semitism card, it is a defence mired in lies and distortions.
Starmer and any future UK PM has to find the balance, to have no truck with the Zionists but to protect all peace living Jews from the horrors of anti semitism
That is a massive and urgent education lesson and that must also come from UK Jews who are not Zionists who do not support the current evil Israeli Government.
The anti-Israel left in this country have the worst case of imperial nostalgia going. It's farcical to think that Britain can impose its will on the region and law down the law like that.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
As it is the local elections it's as good a time as any to have an anti-NIMBY moan. I was thinking on it when seeing a local news report about 'controversial' plans for three houses being approved.
Now, there can be justifications for concerns about something of any size (though it would have to be pretty strong for such a minor proposal), but it just seems so depressing to me that whether this particular site was good or bad, that approval of three homes is something newsworthy and noteworthy.
How can we get anything done when even something with such a localised impact as three houses (even assuming it is an egregious case) is deemed front page worthy?
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
It’s actually wild that Nigel Farage thought nobody would notice that the couple who won his energy bills prize draw were actually his friends.
Is there anything honest about Farage?
Actually it's probably a sign that it was a genuine draw. Party activists will have been disproportionately likely to a) know about it and b) get tickets, so it's not surprising if one of them was the winner.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
Do you not have even a few qualms supporting a country where parlimentarians celebrated that law being passed with champagne, while wearing noose shaped lapel pins?
I don’t “support” a country. It’s not a football team. I think those guys are absolute tosspots. That said, maybe one day I will need to rely on the safe haven of the Jewish state so I want it to be there and a safe place for jews.
What sort of country is it that is such a "safe space" built on graves? How can it be safe for anyone with those sorts of people in power?
Well, when the alternative is the pogrom or the holocaust…
Anyway. Every country is built on graves. England was built on graves. It’s just that Israel is a much newer country.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
Do you not have even a few qualms supporting a country where parlimentarians celebrated that law being passed with champagne, while wearing noose shaped lapel pins?
I don’t “support” a country. It’s not a football team. I think those guys are absolute tosspots. That said, maybe one day I will need to rely on the safe haven of the Jewish state so I want it to be there and a safe place for jews.
What sort of country is it that is such a "safe space" built on graves? How can it be safe for anyone with those sorts of people in power?
Well, when the alternative is the pogrom or the holocaust…
Anyway. Every country is built on graves. England was built on graves. It’s just that Israel is a much newer country.
So, fresher graves? Is that a sound foundation?
Dunno. Time will tell ultimately. I am a liberal at heart and I detest war, corruption, violence and greed. But if that’s what it will take to secure the state of Israel… An impossible question
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
Do you not have even a few qualms supporting a country where parlimentarians celebrated that law being passed with champagne, while wearing noose shaped lapel pins?
I don’t “support” a country. It’s not a football team. I think those guys are absolute tosspots. That said, maybe one day I will need to rely on the safe haven of the Jewish state so I want it to be there and a safe place for jews.
What sort of country is it that is such a "safe space" built on graves? How can it be safe for anyone with those sorts of people in power?
Well, when the alternative is the pogrom or the holocaust…
Anyway. Every country is built on graves. England was built on graves. It’s just that Israel is a much newer country.
So, fresher graves? Is that a sound foundation?
Dunno. Time will tell ultimately. I am a liberal at heart and I detest war, corruption, violence and greed. But if that’s what it will take to secure the state of Israel… An impossible question
So the ends justify the means? No matter how extreme the means?
"Lord Peter Mandelson is set to be fined up to £300 for public urination in London, however Kensington and Chelsea council is unable to find a suitable address to send the fixed penalty notice to."
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
Do you not have even a few qualms supporting a country where parlimentarians celebrated that law being passed with champagne, while wearing noose shaped lapel pins?
I don’t “support” a country. It’s not a football team. I think those guys are absolute tosspots. That said, maybe one day I will need to rely on the safe haven of the Jewish state so I want it to be there and a safe place for jews.
What sort of country is it that is such a "safe space" built on graves? How can it be safe for anyone with those sorts of people in power?
Well, when the alternative is the pogrom or the holocaust…
Anyway. Every country is built on graves. England was built on graves. It’s just that Israel is a much newer country.
So, fresher graves? Is that a sound foundation?
Dunno. Time will tell ultimately. I am a liberal at heart and I detest war, corruption, violence and greed. But if that’s what it will take to secure the state of Israel… An impossible question
So the ends justify the means? No matter how extreme the means?
No. But yet history tells us that they do, if you win. Only losers get held accountable by history.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
The crux of the matter in my opinion has always been that because of the horror and depravity of the Holocaust, Israel was always given leeway in its defence and military outlook, that other States were not given.
A sort of unwritten code, we can't penalise Israel, because we carry a shared guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen.
While Israel was led by less extreme people than Netanyahu, and while the extremists were on the Arab side, that leeway seemed acceptable.
However, when Netanyahu starts to act like Hitler, in Gaza in the West Bank, in Labanon, and clearly overstep the line in to war criminality, that rope/leeway has snapped.
The US have always back Israel, wharever they do, in the UK Pritti Patel Badenoch, Farage will bend over backwards in utter denial of the criminality of Netanyahu.
Starmer acted too late to recognise a Palestinian State, but act he has. He now needs to do what the majority want. Ostracise Israel until there is suitable regime trade, stop all military and diplomatic ties.All for Israel, like Russia to be barred from IOC, Fifa, Euro vision etc, call from the ridiculous permissions Israel has with European bodies.
The default of the Zionists will always be the anti semitism card, it is a defence mired in lies and distortions.
Starmer and any future UK PM has to find the balance, to have no truck with the Zionists but to protect all peace living Jews from the horrors of anti semitism
That is a massive and urgent education lesson and that must also come from UK Jews who are not Zionists who do not support the current evil Israeli Government.
The anti-Israel left in this country have the worst case of imperial nostalgia going. It's farcical to think that Britain can impose its will on the region and law down the law like that.
That is exactly how the state of Israel was founded.
It’s actually wild that Nigel Farage thought nobody would notice that the couple who won his energy bills prize draw were actually his friends.
Is there anything honest about Farage?
Actually it's probably a sign that it was a genuine draw. Party activists will have been disproportionately likely to a) know about it and b) get tickets, so it's not surprising if one of them was the winner.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
I mean really, haven't the police and CPS got better things to do and serious criminals to catch instead of wasting funds arresting people for watching porn depicting adults not genetically related in real life engaging in sexual acts legal in real life? Baroness Bertin is absurd as are Labour in backing her ridiculous amendment
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
Oh I agree with you on this. And again I have no problem with the state of Israel existing as a Jewish state (as long as they treat their minorities properly as well). But there has to be a Palestinian state as well. The West Bank and Gaza are not Israel and Israelis should not be settling them.
If Jews are allowed to ask for an ethnostate, are white people allowed to ask for the same? Asking for a few friends
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
Oh I agree with you on this. And again I have no problem with the state of Israel existing as a Jewish state (as long as they treat their minorities properly as well). But there has to be a Palestinian state as well. The West Bank and Gaza are not Israel and Israelis should not be settling them.
If Jews are allowed to ask for an ethnostate, are white people allowed to ask for the same? Asking for a few friends
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
Not exactly a high turnout in the Lords for that vote I see. Probably too busy watching porn on their phones.
I don't get this, do the noble Lords not know that the actresses aren't really the actors' step mothers? Might be TMI but I've called many a man Daddy who wasn't actually my father. We'll be criminlising an awful lot of kinks if the standard is that the real life version of the role play would be illegal.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
This is quite hilariously stupid. Next they will try and ban age inappropriate porn. Then porn where someone might have racial privilege. Then porn in dentist waiting rooms. Then porn which turns anyone on
BREAKING: Kamala Harris just gave the clearest signal yet she’ll run for president again in 2028.
Everything she said would happen if Trump was elected has .
She was proven right .
Doesn't make her a good candidate, or a good president though.
Harris would be a daft move
Yesterday's failure
Indeed, she led the Democrats to their worst defeat in the Electoral College since Dukakis in 1988. It would be like them picking Kerry not Obama in 2008.
She won't get the nomination anyway, in the early states Buttigieg leads her in New Hampshire and North Carolina and Florida and Newsom leads her in Nevada and California
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
I mean really, haven't the police and CPS got better things to do and serious criminals to catch instead of wasting funds arresting people for watching porn depicting adults not genetically related in real life engaging in sexual acts legal in real life? Baroness Bertin is absurd as are Labour in backing her ridiculous amendment
To a degree.
When I worked on the youth mental health ward nearly all the patients had a history of sexual abuse, nearly all from stepfathers or step brothers.
Step-incest is not some sort of benign kink, like a love of leather or latex, for many it is a life changing form of abuse.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
Not exactly a high turnout in the Lords for that vote I see. Probably too busy watching porn on their phones.
I don't get this, do the noble Lords not know that the actresses aren't really the actors' step mothers? Might be TMI but I've called many a man Daddy who wasn't actually my father. We'll be criminlising an awful lot of kinks if the standard is that the real life version of the role play would be illegal.
Indeed. "Daddy" porn is massively popular - with women. Like it or not, people have kinks
The Left is now the "anti sex league", unless its sex with trans women with penises, then lesbian women must be forced to like it. indeed if lesbians refuse to have sex with someone on the grounds "this person has a penis and just says he's a woman" that's basically as bad as rape
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
I mean really, haven't the police and CPS got better things to do and serious criminals to catch instead of wasting funds arresting people for watching porn depicting adults not genetically related in real life engaging in sexual acts legal in real life? Baroness Bertin is absurd as are Labour in backing her ridiculous amendment
To a degree.
When I worked on the youth mental health ward nearly all the patients had a history of sexual abuse, nearly all from stepfathers or step brothers.
Step-incest is not some sort of benign kink, like a love of leather or latex, for many it is a life changing form of abuse.
And for some, it is a kink that comes out of nowhere, there is no backstory. And for others, who WERE abused - kink and porn and fantasy is a way of healing the abuse and turning it into something orgasmic and positive
The Iranians don't seem to realize they have no cards, other than a short term extortion of the World by using International Waterways. The only reason they are alive today is to negotiate! President DONALD J. TRUMP
They have a strait...
I mean just to point out the bleeding obvious if it was "a short term extortion" the implication is that the US could reopen the strait whenever they want to, so in which case why are they negotiating with Iran? Why not just reopen the strait and given Iran nothing?
Or maybe Donald J. Trump (the J is for JeNiUS) completely screwed-up and didn't think that Iran would pull the plug on shipping through the strait, even though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State, Director of the CIA, and his own Vice President warned him that that's exactly what Iran would do, as essentially everybody else has realised for the best part of 50 years now.
The Iranians don't seem to realize they have no cards, other than a short term extortion of the World by using International Waterways. The only reason they are alive today is to negotiate! President DONALD J. TRUMP
They have a strait...
I mean just to point out the bleeding obvious if it was "a short term extortion" the implication is that the US could reopen the strait whenever they want to, so in which case why are they negotiating with Iran? Why not just reopen the strait and given Iran nothing?
Or maybe Donald J. Trump (the J is for JeNiUS) completely screwed-up and didn't think that Iran would pull the plug on shipping through the strait, even though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State, Director of the CIA, and his own Vice President warned him that that's exactly what Iran would do, as essentially everybody else has realised for the best part of 50 years now.
With all due respect, none of those people are Bibi.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
Not exactly a high turnout in the Lords for that vote I see. Probably too busy watching porn on their phones.
I don't get this, do the noble Lords not know that the actresses aren't really the actors' step mothers? Might be TMI but I've called many a man Daddy who wasn't actually my father. We'll be criminlising an awful lot of kinks if the standard is that the real life version of the role play would be illegal.
Given the report states it's depicting things which are not illegal in real life (which was why ministers resisted a ban) it does raise the obvious question of which legal (if societally condemned) scenarios would be ok and which would not. I'm not wholly sure what crosses the line, legal pornography wise.
What's a poor story driven porn searcher meant to do?
I get Foxy's attempt to draw a line between benign kinks and non-benign kinks, but that's a difficult line to try to draw.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
Seems like this ban, possession of such material by the letter of the law will be a pretty serious offence along the choking stuff, is not just the production of it.
FPT, and remarkably (and coincidentally) on topic:
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the question of whether the rise in the amount of criticism of Israel in the West was due to more Muslims.
So, I decided to do some digging. The Pew Research Center is probably the best resource for comparing views on Israel from different countries over time. Plus, there's also Morning Consult, which does similar numbers.
And the answer is... it does not appear so.
If you take two countries with essentially no Muslim immigration (South Korea and Japan), then both countries populations have become signifcantly less enamoured with Israel in the last five years or so. South Korea has gone from basically flat favorability to -60. While Japan has swung to an even more negative -79.
These shifts are, if anything, even worse than the moves in countries with significant Muslim minorities.
Now, could it be because memories of the holocaust are fading?
Sure, that could be a role.
But something terrible happening in the past to your ancestors doesn't give you the right to be a shit now. I wouldn't say to an Armenian, "hey, go kick a Turk, after all, his ancestors were responsible for the Armenian genocide."
It's interesting that you bring up the holocaust. There was a much more recent genocide of jews on 7 October 2023.
My view is that the Americans (and anyone else who cares about Israel) should have said to the Israelis "leave it to us, we'll sort this" and then you say to the Palestinians "either you play nice with us or you play nice with the Israelis."
That doesn't mean I think what's happened since is acceptable, but the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their backers get a free pass from Western observers.
So, there are two Palestines.
There's the West Bank and there's Gaza.
They have -historically- had different governments. One (Gaza) was run by Hamas. The other (the West Bank) was run by Fatah.
Gaza attacked Israel in October 7, not the West Bank.
Why should the Palestinians in the West Bank pay for the actions of Hamas in Gaza?
Okay, replace Palestinians with Gazans in my post clever clogs.
My posts have all been about the West Bank, though.
Because -while I think Israel has over-reacted to the October 7 attacks- it was attacked, and it was (and maybe still is) defending itself.
That doesn't make the creeping invasion of the West Bank, that long predates October 7, any more acceptable.
But I very much support the Israelis staying there. They pulled out of Gaza and look what happened. Exactly the same would happen in the West Bank.
So, your basic premise is that Palestinians and Israelis should not be afforded the same rights?
Why would Israel afford the same rights to non-Israelis?
Why should the Palestinians not have the right to national self determination the same as the Israelis?
Should they have to exist in ever smaller bantustans hemmed in by encroaching settlements that steal their land and water?
Because, ultimately, there’s plenty of arab states but only one Jewish state.
There are plenty of european states too, so why should England exist?
Denying that Palestinians are a people with a national consciousness is one of the steps to cultural genocide.
No matter what reform think, the English haven’t been persecuted for thousands of years. I don’t expect you to understand, as a non-Jew, but the Jewish state is of absolute vital importance.
I agree. It is. But that doesn't give them the right to treat others in the same way they have been treated for thousands of years. There was a path to peace and the current Israeli Government share the blame equally for it not succeeding.
I don’t disagree at all. But the issue is all this talk of “apartheid” misses the point in that Israel will always be an ethno-state or it is nothing. A one state solution cannot work because then it ceases to be the Jewish haven.
The apartheid analogy is due to the recent law.
A Jewish settler can murder several Palestinians and will not face the death penalty.
A Palestinian can murder one Jewish settler and will face the death penalty, their 'trial' will be held under a military court, they may not be able to choose their own defence counsel in most circumstances, in the past the defence counsels are IDF soldiers who have said the Palestinians are vermin who need to be wiped out.
The evidentiary rules mean proper cross examinations cannot be carried out, the prosecution just needs to say 'national security' and that ends the cross examination.
96% of trials end in conviction, the sentence must be carried out within 90 days, and the appellate process is close to non existent.
If that's not apartheid like then what would you call it?
People have been calling Israel an apartheid state for at least 25 years. Anyway, hopefully that law will be stuck down.
well it if walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck.....
The Iranians don't seem to realize they have no cards, other than a short term extortion of the World by using International Waterways. The only reason they are alive today is to negotiate! President DONALD J. TRUMP
They have a strait...
I mean just to point out the bleeding obvious if it was "a short term extortion" the implication is that the US could reopen the strait whenever they want to, so in which case why are they negotiating with Iran? Why not just reopen the strait and given Iran nothing?
Or maybe Donald J. Trump (the J is for JeNiUS) completely screwed-up and didn't think that Iran would pull the plug on shipping through the strait, even though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State, Director of the CIA, and his own Vice President warned him that that's exactly what Iran would do, as essentially everybody else has realised for the best part of 50 years now.
With all due respect, none of those people are Bibi.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
I mean really, haven't the police and CPS got better things to do and serious criminals to catch instead of wasting funds arresting people for watching porn depicting adults not genetically related in real life engaging in sexual acts legal in real life? Baroness Bertin is absurd as are Labour in backing her ridiculous amendment
To a degree.
When I worked on the youth mental health ward nearly all the patients had a history of sexual abuse, nearly all from stepfathers or step brothers.
Step-incest is not some sort of benign kink, like a love of leather or latex, for many it is a life changing form of abuse.
So what? It doesn't mean porn depicting it should be illegal, extreme porn if it involves violence or non consensual sexual activity is already illegal anyway
Seems like this ban, possession of such material by the letter of the law will be a pretty serious offence along the choking stuff, is not just the production of it.
We're fast approaching a moment, probably only months away, when people will be able to make theiir own porn, as kinky as you like (or not). Quite how you police that, I do not know
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
Then porn where someone might have racial privilege.
IDK, there seems to a big market for muscular black men to reassert their racial privilege with married white women.
There's also a quite thriving sub-genre of kink called "raceplay". It is half ten here in Turkey so we are past the lagershed so I will give you an example
A kink friendly white friend of mine, based in New Orleans, once got a lovely, funny, sexy black girlfriend. Everything was fine and fairly vanilla until the girl learned to trust him, and she asked him to role play. As..... an American slave owner bent on raping her, an enslaved black woman. She wanted the whole shebang, right down to the N words and the whips etc
He found it disturbing, as you might, but it pleased her no end, and he really liked her and wanted to be supportive, so he got used to it. And they had several happy months of kinky fun
What can you do? It was consensual, they had safe words, no one got hurt, it was orgasmic
People are freaky in bed. And that's just how it is. Only a stupid government (ours) would try to legislate against this
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
I mean really, haven't the police and CPS got better things to do and serious criminals to catch instead of wasting funds arresting people for watching porn depicting adults not genetically related in real life engaging in sexual acts legal in real life? Baroness Bertin is absurd as are Labour in backing her ridiculous amendment
To a degree.
When I worked on the youth mental health ward nearly all the patients had a history of sexual abuse, nearly all from stepfathers or step brothers.
Step-incest is not some sort of benign kink, like a love of leather or latex, for many it is a life changing form of abuse.
So what? It doesn't mean porn depicting it should be illegal, extreme porn if it involves violence or non consensual sexual activity is already illegal anyway
It normalises sexual abuse. This report from America gives some perspective:
"Analysis of interviews obtained from a random sample of 930 adult women in San Francisco revealed that 17% or one out of approximately every six women who had a stepfather as a principal figure in her childhood years, was sexually abused by him. The comparable figures for biological fathers were 2% or one out of approximately 40 women. In addition, when a distinction was made between Very Serious Sexual Abuse (including experiences ranging from forced penile-vaginal penetration to non-forceful attempted fellatio, cunnilingus , and anal intercourse) and other less serious forms, 47% of the cases of sexual abuse by stepfathers were at the Very Serious level of violation compared with 26% by biological fathers."
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
I mean really, haven't the police and CPS got better things to do and serious criminals to catch instead of wasting funds arresting people for watching porn depicting adults not genetically related in real life engaging in sexual acts legal in real life? Baroness Bertin is absurd as are Labour in backing her ridiculous amendment
To a degree.
When I worked on the youth mental health ward nearly all the patients had a history of sexual abuse, nearly all from stepfathers or step brothers.
Step-incest is not some sort of benign kink, like a love of leather or latex, for many it is a life changing form of abuse.
So what? It doesn't mean porn depicting it should be illegal, extreme porn if it involves violence or non consensual sexual activity is already illegal anyway
It normalises sexual abuse. This report from America gives some perspective:
"Analysis of interviews obtained from a random sample of 930 adult women in San Francisco revealed that 17% or one out of approximately every six women who had a stepfather as a principal figure in her childhood years, was sexually abused by him. The comparable figures for biological fathers were 2% or one out of approximately 40 women. In addition, when a distinction was made between Very Serious Sexual Abuse (including experiences ranging from forced penile-vaginal penetration to non-forceful attempted fellatio, cunnilingus , and anal intercourse) and other less serious forms, 47% of the cases of sexual abuse by stepfathers were at the Very Serious level of violation compared with 26% by biological fathers."
You are talking about rape and non-consensual abuse. That is already heavily policed in porn. Consensual sex between step-relations is legal (as it should be, if they are adults, there is no reason why not). The government proposes to ban the pornographic representation, by actors, of a form of sex which is entirely legal in reality. It's absurd
On that basis you should ban anal porn because, even though it is legal, it is arguably unhealthy and dangerous (and that is arguable)
In fact using your logic you should ban all porn of any kind, because it might encourage and normalise "sex" which leads to various diseases
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
I mean really, haven't the police and CPS got better things to do and serious criminals to catch instead of wasting funds arresting people for watching porn depicting adults not genetically related in real life engaging in sexual acts legal in real life? Baroness Bertin is absurd as are Labour in backing her ridiculous amendment
To a degree.
When I worked on the youth mental health ward nearly all the patients had a history of sexual abuse, nearly all from stepfathers or step brothers.
Step-incest is not some sort of benign kink, like a love of leather or latex, for many it is a life changing form of abuse.
So what? It doesn't mean porn depicting it should be illegal, extreme porn if it involves violence or non consensual sexual activity is already illegal anyway
It normalises sexual abuse. This report from America gives some perspective:
"Analysis of interviews obtained from a random sample of 930 adult women in San Francisco revealed that 17% or one out of approximately every six women who had a stepfather as a principal figure in her childhood years, was sexually abused by him. The comparable figures for biological fathers were 2% or one out of approximately 40 women. In addition, when a distinction was made between Very Serious Sexual Abuse (including experiences ranging from forced penile-vaginal penetration to non-forceful attempted fellatio, cunnilingus , and anal intercourse) and other less serious forms, 47% of the cases of sexual abuse by stepfathers were at the Very Serious level of violation compared with 26% by biological fathers."
You are talking about rape and non-consensual abuse. That is already heavily policed in porn. Consensual sex between step-relations is legal (as it should be, if they are adults, there is no reason why not). The government proposes to ban the pornographic representation, by actors, of a form of sex which is entirely legal in reality. It's absurd
On that basis you should ban anal porn because, even though it is legal, it is arguably unhealthy and dangerous (and that is arguable)
In fact using your logic you should ban all porn of any kind, because it might encourage and normalise "sex" which leads to various diseases
If the noble lords thought that would pass the Commons they would try it.
Only an 8 book series? It was clearly just getting going too.
But being serious for a moment, the Lords should debate those things - Parliament sets limits on porn content, and what is obscene and not obscene, and if they are adding further things here they really need to do a thorough exploration of everything to determine what is permissable and what is not.
Genuine comment. Otherwise they are making law on the hoof, not examining in depth the reasons why some is ok and some is not.
Comments
Full marks for creativity to Umesh Kumar, who put in nomination papers to stand for Hounslow council in Heston East ward for the Lib Dems - and also to stand in Heston West ward for Reform UK. Unfortunately multiple candidacies aren't allowed these days, and he's been disqualified in both wards.
https://bsky.app/profile/andrewteale.me.uk/post/3mj5ue5yitc2w
Obviously, this wouldn't happen in a well-run system. However, at local level most political parties are administered by three enthusiastic amateurs, one of whom might be able to operate the computer.
Must have been a little tired when he posted it.
Extreme Temperatures Around The World
@extremetemps
HARSH MIDDLE EAST HEAT WAVE COMING
A Fierce heat wave is looming in Middle East with Temperatures expected to rise up to 45C after mid month and break several records.
The heat wave will move from West (originating in Sudan) to East.
https://x.com/extremetemps/status/2042657528400769100
🚨 2026 LOCAL ELECTIONS TOTAL NUMBER OF SEATS CONTESTED (/2952):
➡️ RFM: 2,950 (99.9%)
🌳 CON: 2,893 (98.0%)
🌹 LAB: 2,857 (96.8%)
🌍 GRN: 2,824 (95.7%)
🔶 LDM: 2,547 (86.3%)
🧑🔧 TUSC: 269 (9.1%)
⚙️ WPB: 59 (2.0%)
🔴 SDP: 44 (1.5%)
🙋 Inds: 612
🏘️ Localists: 311
Total Number of Candidates (/5047, Due to Multi-Member Wards):
🌹 LAB: 4,882 (96.7%)
➡️ RFM: 4,801 (95.1%)
🌳 CON: 4,752 (94.2%)
🌍 GRN: 4,446 (88.1%)
🔶 LDM: 3,929 (77.8%)
🧑🔧 TUSC: 284 (5.6%)
⚙️ WPB: 72 (1.4%)
🔴 SDP: 48 (1.0%)
🙋 Inds: 861
🏘️ Localists: 572
https://bsky.app/profile/electionmaps.uk/post/3mj5sygdgtc2j
A sort of unwritten code, we can't penalise Israel, because we carry a shared guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen.
While Israel was led by less extreme people than Netanyahu, and while the extremists were on the Arab side, that leeway seemed acceptable.
However, when Netanyahu starts to act like Hitler, in Gaza in the West Bank, in Labanon, and clearly overstep the line in to war criminality, that rope/leeway has snapped.
The US have always back Israel, wharever they do, in the UK Pritti Patel Badenoch, Farage will bend over backwards in utter denial of the criminality of Netanyahu.
Starmer acted too late to recognise a Palestinian State, but act he has. He now needs to do what the majority want. Ostracise Israel until there is suitable regime trade, stop all military and diplomatic ties.All for Israel, like Russia to be barred from IOC, Fifa, Euro vision etc, call from the ridiculous permissions Israel has with European bodies.
The default of the Zionists will always be the anti semitism card, it is a defence mired in lies and distortions.
Starmer and any future UK PM has to find the balance, to have no truck with the Zionists but to protect all peace living Jews from the horrors of anti semitism
That is a massive and urgent education lesson and that must also come from UK Jews who are not Zionists who do not support the current evil Israeli Government.
Reform have really stepped their game up in the last couple of years, so they have made some use of expanding their membership.
Alan Travis
@alantravis40
Interesting list of far left parties Corbyn's Your Party set to purge from its ranks this weekend. Wonder how many members will be left once they've all been booted?
Nb, No Your Party candidates have been nominated to stand in May's council elections in Corbyn's Islington.
https://x.com/alantravis40/status/2042639470395072708
https://x.com/rapidresponse47/status/2042657018050134402
Feels like a small niche, why do they need a political party for that rather than a campaigning organisation?
And of course in the UK, Zack Polanski is Jewish and is strongly opposed to recent Israeli actions.
Starmer U-turns over stepsister porn ban
Labour agrees to back Lords amendment to broaden definition of illegal online depictions of ‘incest’
Sir Keir Starmer has backed a ban on online pornography depicting step-relatives after a rebellion by female MPs and peers.
The move represents a significant climbdown as ministers had previously resisted a ban on material depicting “step-incest” because many relationships between adult step-relatives are not illegal in real life.
In March, the Government was defeated in the Lords by peers who backed, by 144 votes to 143, an amendment by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, calling for step-incest to be included in a ban on harmful online content. Baroness Bertin led a government review on porn regulation last year.
That vote left the Government facing a potential Commons rebellion by disgruntled female Labour MPs who said they would not support ministers in overturning the amendment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/10/stepsister-porn-banned-labour-starmer/
Netanyahu, the leaders of Iran, Hezoballah, Hamas all have innocent blood on their hands, and they all the should face war crimes and we must not forget the 40,000 Iranians recently slaughted by their regime who need a voice
That does not -however- mean the Israel government has not behaved incredibly poorly, partcularly in the West Bank, over the last several years.
It's really simple, to my mind. Do you wish to treat all the inhabitants of the region: Jew, Muslim, Druze, Christian, or whatever, as equally and fairly as possible? Or do you believe that one group should have primacy for some reason?
https://bsky.app/profile/premthakker.bsky.social/post/3micfl2rhak27
Anyway. Every country is built on graves. England was built on graves. It’s just that Israel is a much newer country.
Full council candidate lists
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2042653435015610631
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZY64fb1rh-WSHT_MUBkjBrxOm30tDlzpwaDkeMhgWjQ/edit?gid=1790514332#gid=1790514332
It’s actually wild that Nigel Farage thought nobody would notice that the couple who won his energy bills prize draw were actually his friends.
Is there anything honest about Farage?
Now, there can be justifications for concerns about something of any size (though it would have to be pretty strong for such a minor proposal), but it just seems so depressing to me that whether this particular site was good or bad, that approval of three homes is something newsworthy and noteworthy.
How can we get anything done when even something with such a localised impact as three houses (even assuming it is an egregious case) is deemed front page worthy?
"It happens when ordinary people vote for ordinary people"
This ppb has english weather, dogs and sausage rolls in the rain. And umbrellas.
And hope.
The Green Party
@TheGreenParty
The two-party story is broken. On May 7, write a new one. Vote Green. 💚
https://x.com/TheGreenParty/status/2042655095897416057
Edit: and does not mention the environment
Yesterday's failure
No, I could never get under Pants Peer!
I am assuming the party primaries will wipe her ambitions quite quickly away.
But seriously what is wrong with these people? have they no idea?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6mp8NmsCIc
Harris is not that person
The Iranians have not agreed to turn up yet...
https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/2042655416312606935?s=20
Harris would have been a better president than the other one by at least four orders of magnitude.
She won't get the nomination anyway, in the early states Buttigieg leads her in New Hampshire and North Carolina and Florida and Newsom leads her in Nevada and California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2028_United_States_presidential_election#Statewide_2
When I worked on the youth mental health ward nearly all the patients had a history of sexual abuse, nearly all from stepfathers or step brothers.
Step-incest is not some sort of benign kink, like a love of leather or latex, for many it is a life changing form of abuse.
The Left is now the "anti sex league", unless its sex with trans women with penises, then lesbian women must be forced to like it. indeed if lesbians refuse to have sex with someone on the grounds "this person has a penis and just says he's a woman" that's basically as bad as rape
Twit
Or maybe Donald J. Trump (the J is for JeNiUS) completely screwed-up and didn't think that Iran would pull the plug on shipping through the strait, even though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State, Director of the CIA, and his own Vice President warned him that that's exactly what Iran would do, as essentially everybody else has realised for the best part of 50 years now.
What's a poor story driven porn searcher meant to do?
I get Foxy's attempt to draw a line between benign kinks and non-benign kinks, but that's a difficult line to try to draw.
A kink friendly white friend of mine, based in New Orleans, once got a lovely, funny, sexy black girlfriend. Everything was fine and fairly vanilla until the girl learned to trust him, and she asked him to role play. As..... an American slave owner bent on raping her, an enslaved black woman. She wanted the whole shebang, right down to the N words and the whips etc
He found it disturbing, as you might, but it pleased her no end, and he really liked her and wanted to be supportive, so he got used to it. And they had several happy months of kinky fun
What can you do? It was consensual, they had safe words, no one got hurt, it was orgasmic
People are freaky in bed. And that's just how it is. Only a stupid government (ours) would try to legislate against this
Should he have refused? Perhaps @foxy thinks so
https://bsky.app/profile/peark.es/post/3mj623jhqq22p
Make things with the care of Crossness Pumping Station again and maybe even the NIMBY's will stop objecting to every building in existence.
Also porn.
"Analysis of interviews obtained from a random sample of 930 adult women in San Francisco revealed that 17% or one out of approximately every six women who had a stepfather as a principal figure in her childhood years, was sexually abused by him. The comparable figures for biological fathers were 2% or one out of approximately 40 women. In addition, when a distinction was made between Very Serious Sexual Abuse (including experiences ranging from forced penile-vaginal penetration to non-forceful attempted fellatio, cunnilingus , and anal intercourse) and other less serious forms, 47% of the cases of sexual abuse by stepfathers were at the Very Serious level of violation compared with 26% by biological fathers."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6609753/
Wa-hey! That sounds incredibly rude!
On that basis you should ban anal porn because, even though it is legal, it is arguably unhealthy and dangerous (and that is arguable)
In fact using your logic you should ban all porn of any kind, because it might encourage and normalise "sex" which leads to various diseases
Not all of it is smut, but I've heard some stuff that'd make their hair go white.
https://www.amazon.com/Dinosaur-Erotica-8-book-series/dp/B0BKTPR4K9
"My wet hot allosaurus summer"
But being serious for a moment, the Lords should debate those things - Parliament sets limits on porn content, and what is obscene and not obscene, and if they are adding further things here they really need to do a thorough exploration of everything to determine what is permissable and what is not.
Genuine comment. Otherwise they are making law on the hoof, not examining in depth the reasons why some is ok and some is not.