I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
Somewhere in the vast array of documents the Cabinet Office has gathered on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador in Washington, there is a text message which Keir Starmer sent the night before he made the announcement. ‘You’ll be brilliant in challenging circumstances,’ he told Mandelson. ‘And after many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side. I really look forward to that.’
Another Westminster veteran says: ‘I hope this will finally kill the absurd “Keir Starmer is a decent man” narrative. He’s a shitweasel whose sole political talent is blaming others for his own failings.’
He was only a decent man in contrast to Boris in the minds of Remain voters. Someone commented yesterday that people like to have a hero and a villain, with little time for nuance, so Sir Keir was feted as high minded and squeaky clean
I think Kier was quite high minded at one point. His youthful publications, pro bono work for the McLibel two, etc.
Quite when and why he went over to the dark side is unclear. The usual combination of ambition and arrogance I suppose.
Perhaps, but we are talking about him being thought of a ‘a decent man’ based on his political career really, namely his time as LotO, and I think that was only thrust upon him because he was Remain’s man vs Brexit Boris, and so wasn’t allowed to be anything but pure.
It is as old as the hills that humans like to divide characters in a story into heroes and villains, it’s easy
Trump firing his Navy guy is a great idea. Fire all the generals and replace them with Himmler and Goring.
Worked for Adolf. Triumph of the Will and all that.
Tbf the fired guy had no military experience whatsoever and the USN performance in Eyeran hasn't been exactly world (or mullah) beating. Hoewver I don't underestimate Trump's ability to select someone even worse.
Sure - but he has been firing the brass as well as the administrator. America has lost and now they're flailing around for how to maintain the pretence they have won.
I must thank @Battlebus for being the only contributor who responded to my post on the Christian People's Alliance manifesto for Newham.
It's an interesting set of ideas which seems to rely on the Council working alongside "Christian" charities and rather forgets the work done by Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and other religious groups.
The idea of funding accommodation and meals for rough sleepers will tick the charitable box but if Newham offered it and no one else did, we'd have every rough sleeper in London heading our way.
The most interesting proposal was the one aimed at business - replacing business rates with a turnover tax levied at 5% starting at £125,000. Many moons ago, betting tax paid by the punter was replaced with a gross profits tax paid by the bookie and all punters got tax free betting - one of Nigel Lawson's ideas I believe.
How would a turnover tax work the CPA's view it would stop multi-national organisations paying little or no Corporation Tax sounds superficially attractive but I have my doubts based on "if it were that simple, why has it not been tried?".
I did wonder when I first read the proposal if this was a second attempt at the "pasty tax" but related to other baked or half-baked products?
It may well need more work, but a turnover tax would considerably level the playing field between high st and online sales.
A turnover tax is one of those ideas that sounds clever right up to the point where you notice some firms have huge sales and tiny margins.
Taxing turnover rather than profit means businesses can be hit even when they’re making very little, or even losing money. That would hammer supermarkets, wholesalers and a lot of high-street retail far more than it would hurt firms with fat margins. Corporation tax, for all its faults, is at least a tax on profits rather than gross sales. (GOV.UK)
You also get the problem of repeated taxation through the supply chain, which distorts pricing and business structure. There’s a reason most tax systems don’t just slap a flat levy on revenue and call it job done. (OECD)
If the real complaint is multinationals shifting profits, the answer is tighter rules and enforcement, not replacing one imperfect tax with a much dafter one. Lovely slogan, rotten policy.
Turnover taxes are massively economically illiterate. Anyone proposing them is an utter moron who shouldn't be put in charge of a whelk stall.
There are only two economically sane ways to raise tax on business activity. VAT on sales, with a reclaim system like we have so only the end user pays, and Corporation Tax (or similar) on profits. Everything else - turnover taxes, business rates, taxes on employment etc is stupid and damaging.
The sooner politicians understand this, the soon they have a chance of getting some economic growth back.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
We don't have to - it wasn't that long ago there were signs saying "no blacks, no Jews, no Irish" and the like. I don't remember the Telegraph and people like Goodwin getting upset about that.
To take it further, some people don't want smokers in their property and say so. Others insist on only male or only female tenants.
I understand those seeking to make political outrage and capital out of this and at the same time I don't.
Should a property owner not have any say in who they choose to have as a tenant? Ideally, there would be no issues but living in the real world (which is more than Goodwin seems to), the old adage of "people like people like themselves" comes to mind.
I suppose it would be easier if discrimination were implicit rather than explicit.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
We don't have to - it wasn't that long ago there were signs saying "no blacks, no Jews, no Irish" and the like. I don't remember the Telegraph and people like Goodwin getting upset about that.
To take it further, some people don't want smokers in their property and say so. Others insist on only male or only female tenants.
I understand those seeking to make political outrage and capital out of this and at the same time I don't.
Should a property owner not have any say in who they choose to have as a tenant? Ideally, there would be no issues but living in the real world (which is more than Goodwin seems to), the old adage of "people like people like themselves" comes to mind.
I suppose it would be easier if discrimination were implicit rather than explicit.
Dancing on the head of a pin there, usual woke crap that we must not offend non whites but for whites you can crap over them all day as they are privileged.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
There really are several sorts of issue here. First of all, what happens when you substitute 'Jews' or 'non white ethnicities' or 'Irish' or 'Catholics' for 'Islam' in this argument?
Secondly, there is an academic/quasi academic issue of what would have been the best policy from 1950 to 2025 WRT assimilation and migration, which is all very interesting but brings little to bear on what to do from 2026 and the next 75 years with the population we now have. Isam is being a social historian. he doesn't like what the UK policy has achieved.
But what is interesting is the next question, given where we are about which we have no choice, what best to do. i should think for most PBers the choices lie somewhere between deportation of millions of UK citizens and those with ILR (the far right), and open borders with an indiscriminate welcome mat (Greens in some moods).
An underestimated fact is that Catholics (I am not one) have gone from being a tiny persecuted group regarded as traitors in the late 16th century to a most respected and loyal identity and about four million strong.
For me, that, with all the differences acknowledged, is my model.
It’s that day in the year when the most annoying people on earth say “AcKshUaLly St George WaS SyRiaN and WoulD be A RefUgee”
That bit doesn't bother me. What does is that England has a patron saint who isn't English and has no association with England. Could have picked someone worthy.
The Patron saint of Palestine, which we imported via returning Crusaders.
LOL
The St George was a Palestinian ‘hot take’
BTW as sorry I am for your teams relegation, especially as you seem a decent guy, I did put a fiver on them at 5/4 to go down after a post lf yours here.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
The argument you put forth is exactly what many people in the UK in the first half of the 20th century said about Jewish immigration.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
AI says
Muslim marrying Christian/no religion is 2-4% Sikh is 3-5% Hindi 8-10% Jewish 30-40%
Given that there are 4m Muslims, 1m Hindus, 500k Sikhs and 250k Jews in the UK, that seems to back up my instinct; there are millions of Muslims who don’t seem to want to mix with what was considered the native population, compared with a much smaller number both in real terms and as a percentage of the other religions mentioned. Throw in 7/7, Lee Rigby, Westminster & London Bridge, Manchester Arena, the PBunmentionable, and I say, with no offence to the nice Muslims, the sixties, nurses, dentists and so on that on balance I think it was a bad move to have so many here, even if on a one to one level I consider them no differently to anyone else
It’s that day in the year when the most annoying people on earth say “AcKshUaLly St George WaS SyRiaN and WoulD be A RefUgee”
That bit doesn't bother me. What does is that England has a patron saint who isn't English and has no association with England. Could have picked someone worthy.
He replaced St Edward the Confessor, who, TBH was rather unlikely as a saint and St Edmond, of Bury St Edmonds fame.
And Good morning everybody. Sunny again and warmer.
It’s that day in the year when the most annoying people on earth say “AcKshUaLly St George WaS SyRiaN and WoulD be A RefUgee”
That bit doesn't bother me. What does is that England has a patron saint who isn't English and has no association with England. Could have picked someone worthy.
We could always switch to St Edmund. Plus it's a good excuse of a bank holiday in that long slog towards Christmas.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
The argument you put forth is exactly what many people in the UK in the first half of the 20th century said about Jewish immigration.
But, a hundred years later, there are only 250k Jews in the UK, whereas the number of Muslims is fifteen times that, and growing faster than any other religion, has its own political party with seats in parliament and so on, so the difference is obvious
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
I've just had a quick look on Nomis and, funnily enough, those stats aren't readily available as a cross-tab. The Left get all misty-eyed about inter-racial marriages (e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44040766), but don't like to bring religion into the conversation.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
Political Islam is perceived to have a different agenda and it is naive to ignore that. The problem is not limited to the muslim minority in the UK, it is evident in most non-islamic countries with a substantial muslim minority.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
We don't have to - it wasn't that long ago there were signs saying "no blacks, no Jews, no Irish" and the like. I don't remember the Telegraph and people like Goodwin getting upset about that.
To take it further, some people don't want smokers in their property and say so. Others insist on only male or only female tenants.
I understand those seeking to make political outrage and capital out of this and at the same time I don't.
Should a property owner not have any say in who they choose to have as a tenant? Ideally, there would be no issues but living in the real world (which is more than Goodwin seems to), the old adage of "people like people like themselves" comes to mind.
I suppose it would be easier if discrimination were implicit rather than explicit.
It’s that day in the year when the most annoying people on earth say “AcKshUaLly St George WaS SyRiaN and WoulD be A RefUgee”
That bit doesn't bother me. What does is that England has a patron saint who isn't English and has no association with England. Could have picked someone worthy.
I'm with Leon on this one. St. George was from the Middle East, but was culturally a Greek-speaking Christian, as were many people in the top left corner of the Middle East in those days - the Turkicisation and Islamicisation came in waves of later conquests. Also, St. George slew a dragon. That's fairly badass. Saints are generally fairly wet and are mostly remembered for nothing more worthwhile than getting killed in creative ways or persuading people to be Christian (or, in the case of St. Werburgh, restoring a goose* to full health after it had been eaten - so let's not get snippy about believability). I'm quite pleased we have a saint from the more badass end of the spectrum. Also, my understanding is that following his slaying of the dragon, he was offered a banquet by grateful townsfolk and then offered the hand of the king's daughter in marriage, or something, and he got a bit embarrassed about all the fuss. A perfect patron saint for England really.
*She specialised in goose based miracles. She also banished all the geese from a village in Northamptonshire - Weedon Bec springs to mind - which is more believable but fails the impressiveness test, I reckon I could have done that if I'd had to, even with 7th century AD technology.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
AI says
Muslim marrying Christian/no religion is 2-4% Sikh is 3-5% Hindi 8-10% Jewish 30-40%
Given that there are 4m Muslims, 1m Hindus, 500k Sikhs and 250k Jews in the UK, that seems to back up my instinct; there are millions of Muslims who don’t seem to want to mix with what was considered the native population, compared with a much smaller number both in real terms and as a percentage of the other religions mentioned. Throw in 7/7, Lee Rigby, Westminster & London Bridge, Manchester Arena, the PBunmentionable, and I say, with no offence to the nice Muslims, the sixties, nurses, dentists and so on that on balance I think it was a bad move to have so many here, even if on a one to one level I consider them no differently to anyone else
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
We don't have to - it wasn't that long ago there were signs saying "no blacks, no Jews, no Irish" and the like. I don't remember the Telegraph and people like Goodwin getting upset about that.
To take it further, some people don't want smokers in their property and say so. Others insist on only male or only female tenants.
I understand those seeking to make political outrage and capital out of this and at the same time I don't.
Should a property owner not have any say in who they choose to have as a tenant? Ideally, there would be no issues but living in the real world (which is more than Goodwin seems to), the old adage of "people like people like themselves" comes to mind.
I suppose it would be easier if discrimination were implicit rather than explicit.
Dancing on the head of a pin there, usual woke crap that we must not offend non whites but for whites you can crap over them all day as they are privileged.
I’ve got a weird story that I cannot prove but.. if it’s true…
I regularly shop at my local “nice supermarket”. Have done for years. To the extent long term staff and myself are on that “awkward nodding and mumbled hello” phase. Which is still nicer that not being recognised
Anyway the other day I was checking out food and the lady picked up my (very pricey) rack of lamb and she looked at it, then looked at me, then very obviously didn’t scan it and pushed it towards me. Basically giving it me for free
Why?? Maybe it’s because I’m now so old and broken down she took pity. But I doubt it. I’m not that old and decrepit and I regularly buy expensive stuff
Perhaps because I’m local? Maybe. But maybe it’s because I’m local and white. Because the other day I overheard staff quietly discussing politics and it was pretty clear they were right wing, pro reform, anti migration. Most of the staff are white working class unlike the customers who are 60-70% non white
I should add that, importantly, I have never noticed a shred of racism from staff, they are impeccably polite to everyone. When someone shoplifts they just sigh and tut and look distressed and I feel sorry for them. Doing a hard day’s work for not much pay and then someone comes in and does that must be heart breaking
So I could be entirely wrong. But maybe I’m right. Are we seeing whites favour whites as they become a minority? You could argue that’s human nature and inevitable. It’s a mirror image of Muslim landlords favouring Muslim tenants, that @isam mentions above
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
Why can’t all ambassadors be more like this guy and less like Peter Mandelson?
TBF Obama sent Rahm Emmanuel as ambassador to Japan who was the closest thing he had to a Peter Mandelson figure and he made himself wildly popular by constantly posting Content about trains.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
AI says
Muslim marrying Christian/no religion is 2-4% Sikh is 3-5% Hindi 8-10% Jewish 30-40%
Given that there are 4m Muslims, 1m Hindus, 500k Sikhs and 250k Jews in the UK, that seems to back up my instinct; there are millions of Muslims who don’t seem to want to mix with what was considered the native population, compared with a much smaller number both in real terms and as a percentage of the other religions mentioned. Throw in 7/7, Lee Rigby, Westminster & London Bridge, Manchester Arena, the PBunmentionable, and I say, with no offence to the nice Muslims, the sixties, nurses, dentists and so on that on balance I think it was a bad move to have so many here, even if on a one to one level I consider them no differently to anyone else
It seems to me that this discussion needs handling with care. I was brought up in a strongly Jewish part of London, and when young it never crossed my mind that in time anti-Semitism would rise up again as it has. This has happened through multiple factors including the presence of millions of Islamic people, the rise of the far right, the continuing antisemitism of the far left and Israel's damaging and catastrophic policies and actions.
Isam wants to talk about 'too many'. I want to tell you about the little Islamic girl who was bridesmaid to my daughter at her very Christian and churchy wedding and think about what this discussion does to her as she grows up and how it should be conducted.
There was a time when really nice decent people thought there were too many Jewish people in central Europe.
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
I've just had a quick look on Nomis and, funnily enough, those stats aren't readily available as a cross-tab. The Left get all misty-eyed about inter-racial marriages (e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44040766), but don't like to bring religion into the conversation.
From 11:00-18:00 here, Enoch Powell sums up the problem perfectly, using stats from the mid 60s to accurately forecast what has become now. It’s a matter of numbers combined with willingness to assimilate, and if the big numbers don’t want to assimilate, things are more difficult
A brilliant interview, well worth watching in full, but the relevant part is the 7mins I mentioned
Happy 23rd April, the day we English celebrate some Greek Christian bloke from modern-day Turkey being prosecuted for killing an endangered species...
More to the point it's Shakespeare's birthday*. An Englishman we can all be proud of.
Benpointer's idosyncratic list of greatest English men and women, in no particular order:
William Shakespeare Isaac Newton Florence Nightingale Charles Darwin George Stephenson Mary Anning Michael Faraday Horatio Nelson Jane Austen Elizabeth I Winston Churchill Isambard Kingdom Brunel
(*Probably)
Douglas Jardine surely. No Englishman has ever made so many Australians whines and cry.
He was Scottish!
Was he? Scottish parents but born in India and represented England, mostly educated in England - if we are saying people are the nationality of their parents’ places of birth it could be tricky.
Look where his ashes were scattered.
his ashes were scattered at the summit of Cross Craigs overlooking Loch Rannoch in Perthshire, Scotland.
If your ashes are scattered at sea does it make you a fish?
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
It is indeed an almighty mess
Are we approaching the moment where David Davis stands up in Parliament and exclaims "for the love of God, go man!"? I think we are.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
We don't have to - it wasn't that long ago there were signs saying "no blacks, no Jews, no Irish" and the like. I don't remember the Telegraph and people like Goodwin getting upset about that.
To take it further, some people don't want smokers in their property and say so. Others insist on only male or only female tenants.
I understand those seeking to make political outrage and capital out of this and at the same time I don't.
Should a property owner not have any say in who they choose to have as a tenant? Ideally, there would be no issues but living in the real world (which is more than Goodwin seems to), the old adage of "people like people like themselves" comes to mind.
I suppose it would be easier if discrimination were implicit rather than explicit.
"Wasn't that long ago?" Aren't we talking sixty years or so? That is almost a lifetime ago. That should be pointed to as to how distant this sort of practice is, and how unacceptable it would be to return to it.
There are people who specify women-only. Sometimes this is because the landlord is a single woman and wouldn't be happy with inviting a strange man to live in their house. I think that's a very understandable exception to the rule. Sometimes, though, the ad might specify that young women are preferred, and that can be because the landlord is a man hoping to take rental payment on a not exclusively financial basis - not something we should be relaxed about.
I'm sure that a devout and intolerant Muslim would have found it difficult to rent a room in my house when I took in lodgers, due to us often eating sausages and bacon. And, similarly, if I were renting a room from a devout and intolerant Muslim landlord who sought to prevent me from eating bacon I would have found that somewhat inconvenient, though not as inconvenient as when I rented a room from a landlady who asked me to wash dishes in cold rainwater, was upset at people flushing the loo after a piss, and would turn off the hot water boiler without telling anyone, so that showers would be cold if you forgot to turn it on in advance.
Now, putting in an advert that tenants would be forbidden from cooking pork would have largely the same effect as asking for Muslims-only, but it leaves open the possibility of a vegan non-Muslim tenant and is more acceptable than excluding people on the basis of identity.
I'm really disappointed in posters like stodge or battery correct horse who are seeking to excuse or deflect from discrimination, apparently just because it's a far-right arsehole who is pointing it out.
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
They're all tying themselves in knots over who said what to whom and when about DV.
That is not the error. The error was *appointing Peter Mandelson*
Keith was asked that question - why? - repeatedly and simply said "I have already apologised for that error of judgement". But can't face into what that was and why.
Putting it simply, the failure was deciding to appoint him, not everything that followed. "Nobody told me he failed DV" is laughable when DV can be overruled and now we have the Cabinet Office arguing that DV wasn't needed at all.
Mandie was Mandie. And they appointed him.
Here's my 30p. Starmer didn't appoint him. McSweeney did. Keith can't answer any more questions because to do so would expose him to the reality that he was not in charge.
Somewhere in the vast array of documents the Cabinet Office has gathered on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador in Washington, there is a text message which Keir Starmer sent the night before he made the announcement. ‘You’ll be brilliant in challenging circumstances,’ he told Mandelson. ‘And after many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side. I really look forward to that.’
Another Westminster veteran says: ‘I hope this will finally kill the absurd “Keir Starmer is a decent man” narrative. He’s a shitweasel whose sole political talent is blaming others for his own failings.’
He was only a decent man in contrast to Boris in the minds of Remain voters. Someone commented yesterday that people like to have a hero and a villain, with little time for nuance, so Sir Keir was feted as high minded and squeaky clean
The number of people who had Starmer as a hero must be very small indeed.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
AI says
Muslim marrying Christian/no religion is 2-4% Sikh is 3-5% Hindi 8-10% Jewish 30-40%
Given that there are 4m Muslims, 1m Hindus, 500k Sikhs and 250k Jews in the UK, that seems to back up my instinct; there are millions of Muslims who don’t seem to want to mix with what was considered the native population, compared with a much smaller number both in real terms and as a percentage of the other religions mentioned. Throw in 7/7, Lee Rigby, Westminster & London Bridge, Manchester Arena, the PBunmentionable, and I say, with no offence to the nice Muslims, the sixties, nurses, dentists and so on that on balance I think it was a bad move to have so many here, even if on a one to one level I consider them no differently to anyone else
It seems to me that this discussion needs handling with care. I was brought up in a strongly Jewish part of London, and when young it never crossed my mind that in time anti-Semitism would rise up again as it has. This has happened through multiple factors including the presence of millions of Islamic people, the rise of the far right, the continuing antisemitism of the far left and Israel's damaging and catastrophic policies and actions.
Isam wants to talk about 'too many'. I want to tell you about the little Islamic girl who was bridesmaid to my daughter at her very Christian and churchy wedding and think about what this discussion does to her as she grows up and how it should be conducted.
There was a time when really nice decent people thought there were too many Jewish people in central Europe.
The little girl you mention is an example of someone who may assimilate, but the evidence is that the majority don’t want to. And why would they? I don’t blame them, but it doesn’t make for a happier, more united country than the one they or their parents/grandparents arrived in
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
AI says
Muslim marrying Christian/no religion is 2-4% Sikh is 3-5% Hindi 8-10% Jewish 30-40%
Given that there are 4m Muslims, 1m Hindus, 500k Sikhs and 250k Jews in the UK, that seems to back up my instinct; there are millions of Muslims who don’t seem to want to mix with what was considered the native population, compared with a much smaller number both in real terms and as a percentage of the other religions mentioned. Throw in 7/7, Lee Rigby, Westminster & London Bridge, Manchester Arena, the PBunmentionable, and I say, with no offence to the nice Muslims, the sixties, nurses, dentists and so on that on balance I think it was a bad move to have so many here, even if on a one to one level I consider them no differently to anyone else
It seems to me that this discussion needs handling with care. I was brought up in a strongly Jewish part of London, and when young it never crossed my mind that in time anti-Semitism would rise up again as it has. This has happened through multiple factors including the presence of millions of Islamic people, the rise of the far right, the continuing antisemitism of the far left and Israel's damaging and catastrophic policies and actions.
Isam wants to talk about 'too many'. I want to tell you about the little Islamic girl who was bridesmaid to my daughter at her very Christian and churchy wedding and think about what this discussion does to her as she grows up and how it should be conducted.
There was a time when really nice decent people thought there were too many Jewish people in central Europe.
It's obviously wrong to say all of some group behave in a certain way. I think isam's points are reasonable. His original point is absolutely spot on. I couldn't care less if there is someone wanting only Muslims in a house-share or whatever. The Left love to talk about multi-culturalism but what that looks like with very religious groups (Orthodox Jews too) is completely separate communities.
The Patron saint of Palestine, which we imported via returning Crusaders.
LOL
The St George was a Palestinian ‘hot take’
BTW as sorry I am for your teams relegation, especially as you seem a decent guy, I did put a fiver on them at 5/4 to go down after a post lf yours here.
I didn't say that St George was a Palestinian, merely that he is the Patron Saint of Palestine (as well as a number of other places, including Moscow).
But it was returning Crusader Knights that popularised St George in England, and paradoxically the lack of a local shrine was part of the reason, other rivals being particularly associated with regions of England.
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
They're all tying themselves in knots over who said what to whom and when about DV.
That is not the error. The error was *appointing Peter Mandelson*
Keith was asked that question - why? - repeatedly and simply said "I have already apologised for that error of judgement". But can't face into what that was and why.
Putting it simply, the failure was deciding to appoint him, not everything that followed. "Nobody told me he failed DV" is laughable when DV can be overruled and now we have the Cabinet Office arguing that DV wasn't needed at all.
Mandie was Mandie. And they appointed him.
Here's my 30p. Starmer didn't appoint him. McSweeney did. Keith can't answer any more questions because to do so would expose him to the reality that he was not in charge.
Starmer outsourced it all to McSweeney like much of his governing so far.
As I’ve said repeatedly, Starmer should have gone for appointing Mandelson. All of this would have been put to bed with a new leader.
Starmer has made it worse for himself in every possible way.
Somewhere in the vast array of documents the Cabinet Office has gathered on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador in Washington, there is a text message which Keir Starmer sent the night before he made the announcement. ‘You’ll be brilliant in challenging circumstances,’ he told Mandelson. ‘And after many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side. I really look forward to that.’
Another Westminster veteran says: ‘I hope this will finally kill the absurd “Keir Starmer is a decent man” narrative. He’s a shitweasel whose sole political talent is blaming others for his own failings.’
He was only a decent man in contrast to Boris in the minds of Remain voters. Someone commented yesterday that people like to have a hero and a villain, with little time for nuance, so Sir Keir was feted as high minded and squeaky clean
The number of people who had Starmer as a hero must be very small indeed.
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
They're all tying themselves in knots over who said what to whom and when about DV.
That is not the error. The error was *appointing Peter Mandelson*
Keith was asked that question - why? - repeatedly and simply said "I have already apologised for that error of judgement". But can't face into what that was and why.
Putting it simply, the failure was deciding to appoint him, not everything that followed. "Nobody told me he failed DV" is laughable when DV can be overruled and now we have the Cabinet Office arguing that DV wasn't needed at all.
Mandie was Mandie. And they appointed him.
Here's my 30p. Starmer didn't appoint him. McSweeney did. Keith can't answer any more questions because to do so would expose him to the reality that he was not in charge.
I suspect that is true. The whole saga has exposed Starmer's weakness as a Prime Minister, culminating in firing Robbins to save his own hide. Robbins is probably an idiot too, but that is besides the point.
Dan Hodges says Starmer out within 8 weeks. His predictions have been terrible but this feels plausible.
But a new caretaker PM and then another new PM? Surely not.
I guess it depends on whether SKS feels aggrieved at being pushed out and flounces meaning cabinet/NEC install an interim (who would be an official PM and push Truss for the tenure record) or if he wants to do it the usual way and stays in post until leadership contest concludes. Morning all
Dan Hodges says Starmer out within 8 weeks. His predictions have been terrible but this feels plausible.
But a new caretaker PM and then another new PM? Surely not.
I guess it depends on whwther SKS feels aggrieved at being pushed out and flounces meaning cabinet/NEC install an interim (who would be an official PM and push Truss for the tenure record) or if he wants to do it the usual way and stays in post until leadership contest concludes. Morning all
I suspect as with Johnson that is the way it should go. Let's hope Starmer's replacement is a cut above Truss.
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
It is indeed an almighty mess
Are we approaching the moment where David Davis stands up in Parliament and exclaims "for the love of God, go man!"? I think we are.
Pointless by election in Goole and Pocklington to hammer home his chagrin
This feels a lot more reflective of the current position to me than those polls giving Reform a few constituencies and the SNP a decent majority.
Note than on these predicted results, Tory leader Russell Findlay would lose his seat. Irony is it suits Mr Findlay if Jackson Carlaw doesn't win in Eastwood, as it may damage his own chances on the West of Scotland list.
One of the seats going to Reform is Aberdeen Deeside (south) which is being contested by Stephen Flynn, currently SNP MP for Aberdeen South
It’s that day in the year when the most annoying people on earth say “AcKshUaLly St George WaS SyRiaN and WoulD be A RefUgee”
That bit doesn't bother me. What does is that England has a patron saint who isn't English and has no association with England. Could have picked someone worthy.
I'm with Leon on this one. St. George was from the Middle East, but was culturally a Greek-speaking Christian, as were many people in the top left corner of the Middle East in those days - the Turkicisation and Islamicisation came in waves of later conquests. Also, St. George slew a dragon. That's fairly badass. Saints are generally fairly wet and are mostly remembered for nothing more worthwhile than getting killed in creative ways or persuading people to be Christian (or, in the case of St. Werburgh, restoring a goose* to full health after it had been eaten - so let's not get snippy about believability). I'm quite pleased we have a saint from the more badass end of the spectrum. Also, my understanding is that following his slaying of the dragon, he was offered a banquet by grateful townsfolk and then offered the hand of the king's daughter in marriage, or something, and he got a bit embarrassed about all the fuss. A perfect patron saint for England really.
*She specialised in goose based miracles. She also banished all the geese from a village in Northamptonshire - Weedon Bec springs to mind - which is more believable but fails the impressiveness test, I reckon I could have done that if I'd had to, even with 7th century AD technology.
St George was a military officer of Anatolian Greek origin serving in the Roman Army and executed for refusing to leave the Christian faith during the Diclotien Persecutions, so very much the sort of wet martyr that you dislike.
The Patron saint of Palestine, which we imported via returning Crusaders.
LOL
The St George was a Palestinian ‘hot take’
BTW as sorry I am for your teams relegation, especially as you seem a decent guy, I did put a fiver on them at 5/4 to go down after a post lf yours here.
I didn't say that St George was a Palestinian, merely that he is the Patron Saint of Palestine (as well as a number of other places, including Moscow).
But it was returning Crusader Knights that popularised St George in England, and paradoxically the lack of a local shrine was part of the reason, other rivals being particularly associated with regions of England.
Potato, potarto, enjoy Bromley, Burton, Mansfield, Donny et al 😉
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
AI says
Muslim marrying Christian/no religion is 2-4% Sikh is 3-5% Hindi 8-10% Jewish 30-40%
Given that there are 4m Muslims, 1m Hindus, 500k Sikhs and 250k Jews in the UK, that seems to back up my instinct; there are millions of Muslims who don’t seem to want to mix with what was considered the native population, compared with a much smaller number both in real terms and as a percentage of the other religions mentioned. Throw in 7/7, Lee Rigby, Westminster & London Bridge, Manchester Arena, the PBunmentionable, and I say, with no offence to the nice Muslims, the sixties, nurses, dentists and so on that on balance I think it was a bad move to have so many here, even if on a one to one level I consider them no differently to anyone else
It seems to me that this discussion needs handling with care. I was brought up in a strongly Jewish part of London, and when young it never crossed my mind that in time anti-Semitism would rise up again as it has. This has happened through multiple factors including the presence of millions of Islamic people, the rise of the far right, the continuing antisemitism of the far left and Israel's damaging and catastrophic policies and actions.
Isam wants to talk about 'too many'. I want to tell you about the little Islamic girl who was bridesmaid to my daughter at her very Christian and churchy wedding and think about what this discussion does to her as she grows up and how it should be conducted.
There was a time when really nice decent people thought there were too many Jewish people in central Europe.
The little girl you mention is an example of someone who may assimilate, but the evidence is that the majority don’t want to. And why would they? I don’t blame them, but it doesn’t make for a happier, more united country than the one they or their parents/grandparents arrived in
Let us for sake of the discussion assume you are right about 'the majority'. The true question, after sharing out a bit of blame for the problem, is what sort of social and political policy platform will maximise the creation of a 'happier and more united country'.
Happy 23rd April, the day we English celebrate some Greek Christian bloke from modern-day Turkey being prosecuted for killing an endangered species...
More to the point it's Shakespeare's birthday*. An Englishman we can all be proud of.
Benpointer's idosyncratic list of greatest English men and women, in no particular order:
William Shakespeare Isaac Newton Florence Nightingale Charles Darwin George Stephenson Mary Anning Michael Faraday Horatio Nelson Jane Austen Elizabeth I Winston Churchill Isambard Kingdom Brunel
(*Probably)
I would want to add Thomas Penn and whoever popularised chocolate.
And Charles Bradlaugh who was the last person imprisoned in the cell under Big Ben in 188x during his campaign to be allowed to Affirm to be an MP, not swear on a Holy Book.
And in that same spirit, Thomas Helwys, who (I think it was he) was a very early modern campaigner for freedom of thought. He was a Baptist Minister who wrote in around 1610 that everyone should have complete freedom of religion, including atheists not to have one.
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
They're all tying themselves in knots over who said what to whom and when about DV.
That is not the error. The error was *appointing Peter Mandelson*
Keith was asked that question - why? - repeatedly and simply said "I have already apologised for that error of judgement". But can't face into what that was and why.
Putting it simply, the failure was deciding to appoint him, not everything that followed. "Nobody told me he failed DV" is laughable when DV can be overruled and now we have the Cabinet Office arguing that DV wasn't needed at all.
Mandie was Mandie. And they appointed him.
Here's my 30p. Starmer didn't appoint him. McSweeney did. Keith can't answer any more questions because to do so would expose him to the reality that he was not in charge.
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
They're all tying themselves in knots over who said what to whom and when about DV.
That is not the error. The error was *appointing Peter Mandelson*
Keith was asked that question - why? - repeatedly and simply said "I have already apologised for that error of judgement". But can't face into what that was and why.
Putting it simply, the failure was deciding to appoint him, not everything that followed. "Nobody told me he failed DV" is laughable when DV can be overruled and now we have the Cabinet Office arguing that DV wasn't needed at all.
Mandie was Mandie. And they appointed him.
Here's my 30p. Starmer didn't appoint him. McSweeney did. Keith can't answer any more questions because to do so would expose him to the reality that he was not in charge.
I'll hold my hands up; I recall posting that I thought appointing Mandelson might turn out to be a good idea, if only because, apparently, Trump quite liked him (?saw a kindred soul in him) and that might well have turned in UK's interests.
What I didn't realise, and to be fair none of us knew at the time, were the shenanigans going on around the appointment. It would, I suggest, be helpful if Sir K were to a) apologise (again) for the appointment and b) apologise for the said shenanigans and, I suggest, offer Robbins his (or a similar) job. Assuming, of course, he didn't have to sack someone else to do so.
Dan Hodges says Starmer out within 8 weeks. His predictions have been terrible but this feels plausible.
But a new caretaker PM and then another new PM? Surely not.
I guess it depends on whwther SKS feels aggrieved at being pushed out and flounces meaning cabinet/NEC install an interim (who would be an official PM and push Truss for the tenure record) or if he wants to do it the usual way and stays in post until leadership contest concludes. Morning all
I suspect as with Johnson that is the way it should go. Let's hope Starmer's replacement is a cut above Truss.
Its a modest goal. And thus achievable you'd hope.
It’s that day in the year when the most annoying people on earth say “AcKshUaLly St George WaS SyRiaN and WoulD be A RefUgee”
That bit doesn't bother me. What does is that England has a patron saint who isn't English and has no association with England. Could have picked someone worthy.
I'm with Leon on this one. St. George was from the Middle East, but was culturally a Greek-speaking Christian, as were many people in the top left corner of the Middle East in those days - the Turkicisation and Islamicisation came in waves of later conquests. Also, St. George slew a dragon. That's fairly badass. Saints are generally fairly wet and are mostly remembered for nothing more worthwhile than getting killed in creative ways or persuading people to be Christian (or, in the case of St. Werburgh, restoring a goose* to full health after it had been eaten - so let's not get snippy about believability). I'm quite pleased we have a saint from the more badass end of the spectrum. Also, my understanding is that following his slaying of the dragon, he was offered a banquet by grateful townsfolk and then offered the hand of the king's daughter in marriage, or something, and he got a bit embarrassed about all the fuss. A perfect patron saint for England really.
*She specialised in goose based miracles. She also banished all the geese from a village in Northamptonshire - Weedon Bec springs to mind - which is more believable but fails the impressiveness test, I reckon I could have done that if I'd had to, even with 7th century AD technology.
She might be a patron saint of civic pragmatism, then. Sounds ideal.
This feels a lot more reflective of the current position to me than those polls giving Reform a few constituencies and the SNP a decent majority.
Note than on these predicted results, Tory leader Russell Findlay would lose his seat. Irony is it suits Mr Findlay if Jackson Carlaw doesn't win in Eastwood, as it may damage his own chances on the West of Scotland list.
One of the seats going to Reform is Aberdeen Deeside (south) which is being contested by Stephen Flynn, currently SNP MP for Aberdeen South
Do you know how extensively the parties have also added their wobbly Constituency MPs to Regional Lists this time?
Happy 23rd April, the day we English celebrate some Greek Christian bloke from modern-day Turkey being prosecuted for killing an endangered species...
More to the point it's Shakespeare's birthday*. An Englishman we can all be proud of.
Benpointer's idosyncratic list of greatest English men and women, in no particular order:
William Shakespeare Isaac Newton Florence Nightingale Charles Darwin George Stephenson Mary Anning Michael Faraday Horatio Nelson Jane Austen Elizabeth I Winston Churchill Isambard Kingdom Brunel
(*Probably)
I would want to add Thomas Penn and whoever popularised chocolate.
And Charles Bradlaugh who was the last person imprisoned in the cell under Big Ben in 188x during his campaign to be allowed to Affirm to be an MP, not swear on a Holy Book.
And in that same spirit, Thomas Helwys, who (I think it was he) was a very early modern campaigner for freedom of thought. He was a Baptist Minister who wrote in around 1610 that everyone should have complete freedom of religion, including atheists not to have one.
It’s that day in the year when the most annoying people on earth say “AcKshUaLly St George WaS SyRiaN and WoulD be A RefUgee”
That bit doesn't bother me. What does is that England has a patron saint who isn't English and has no association with England. Could have picked someone worthy.
We could always switch to St Edmund. Plus it's a good excuse of a bank holiday in that long slog towards Christmas.
Surely any true-born Englishman would see all Saints days, including Patrons, as idolatrous nonsense. We should have a national heros day where we celebrate a man/woman who can unite us all. I'd go Mr. Blobby.
It’s that day in the year when the most annoying people on earth say “AcKshUaLly St George WaS SyRiaN and WoulD be A RefUgee”
That bit doesn't bother me. What does is that England has a patron saint who isn't English and has no association with England. Could have picked someone worthy.
Given the way England (with a bit of help from Wales, Scotland and Ireland) built an empire that so dominated the world that English is now the lingua franca, I think it's is curiosity fitting that England has a patron saint from elsewhere. You might even say it was inclusive.
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
AI says
Muslim marrying Christian/no religion is 2-4% Sikh is 3-5% Hindi 8-10% Jewish 30-40%
Given that there are 4m Muslims, 1m Hindus, 500k Sikhs and 250k Jews in the UK, that seems to back up my instinct; there are millions of Muslims who don’t seem to want to mix with what was considered the native population, compared with a much smaller number both in real terms and as a percentage of the other religions mentioned. Throw in 7/7, Lee Rigby, Westminster & London Bridge, Manchester Arena, the PBunmentionable, and I say, with no offence to the nice Muslims, the sixties, nurses, dentists and so on that on balance I think it was a bad move to have so many here, even if on a one to one level I consider them no differently to anyone else
It seems to me that this discussion needs handling with care. I was brought up in a strongly Jewish part of London, and when young it never crossed my mind that in time anti-Semitism would rise up again as it has. This has happened through multiple factors including the presence of millions of Islamic people, the rise of the far right, the continuing antisemitism of the far left and Israel's damaging and catastrophic policies and actions.
Isam wants to talk about 'too many'. I want to tell you about the little Islamic girl who was bridesmaid to my daughter at her very Christian and churchy wedding and think about what this discussion does to her as she grows up and how it should be conducted.
There was a time when really nice decent people thought there were too many Jewish people in central Europe.
The little girl you mention is an example of someone who may assimilate, but the evidence is that the majority don’t want to. And why would they? I don’t blame them, but it doesn’t make for a happier, more united country than the one they or their parents/grandparents arrived in
Let us for sake of the discussion assume you are right about 'the majority'. The true question, after sharing out a bit of blame for the problem, is what sort of social and political policy platform will maximise the creation of a 'happier and more united country'.
Beats me. I am afraid I think the damage is irreparable, and society with continue to fracture. You are right to say that I am criticising policies past, and have no solution to the problems of now and the future
Latest party leader net favourability ratings, April 2026
Kemi Badenoch: -21 Nigel Farage: -38 Keir Starmer: -45
Ed Davey: -3 (37% DK) Zack Polanski: -9 (39% DK)
Farage rapidly approaching Starmer levels of hatred.
New Labour leader therefore might do rather well at least for a day.
I think thats the first time KBs gross positives have been above Farages with YG. That ought to see party VI crossover if it persists long term or gets bigger as a gap. Worth keeping an eye on anyway
Why can’t all ambassadors be more like this guy and less like Peter Mandelson?
There is a man who likes his job.
He’s absolutely brilliant. Every day he’s visiting a landmark, going to an event, or even just going to the pub for a pint of beer. He eats fish & chips, pork pies, Sunday roasts, afternoon tea. You’ll probably see him at the cricket over the summer.
He’s totally immersed in British culture and seems to be enjoying every minute of it.
Black children across England and Wales are almost eight times more likely to be strip-searched by police than their white peers according to a new report by the Children's Commissioner.
Nearly half of all searches resulted in no further action.
I don't know if anyone is following - Tom Scott is back on video, with a project showing a video about 'something great and distinctive' about each English county.
If you are looking for an excuse to join Nebula, they are there a week early.
So far he has featured Loughborough Bell Foundry Trust, paragliding in Rutland, University of Lincoln's crime scene house, and Mines Rescue Training in Mansfield Woodhouse near here.
It’s that day in the year when the most annoying people on earth say “AcKshUaLly St George WaS SyRiaN and WoulD be A RefUgee”
That bit doesn't bother me. What does is that England has a patron saint who isn't English and has no association with England. Could have picked someone worthy.
I'm with Leon on this one. St. George was from the Middle East, but was culturally a Greek-speaking Christian, as were many people in the top left corner of the Middle East in those days - the Turkicisation and Islamicisation came in waves of later conquests. Also, St. George slew a dragon. That's fairly badass. Saints are generally fairly wet and are mostly remembered for nothing more worthwhile than getting killed in creative ways or persuading people to be Christian (or, in the case of St. Werburgh, restoring a goose* to full health after it had been eaten - so let's not get snippy about believability). I'm quite pleased we have a saint from the more badass end of the spectrum. Also, my understanding is that following his slaying of the dragon, he was offered a banquet by grateful townsfolk and then offered the hand of the king's daughter in marriage, or something, and he got a bit embarrassed about all the fuss. A perfect patron saint for England really.
*She specialised in goose based miracles. She also banished all the geese from a village in Northamptonshire - Weedon Bec springs to mind - which is more believable but fails the impressiveness test, I reckon I could have done that if I'd had to, even with 7th century AD technology.
St George was a military officer of Anatolian Greek origin serving in the Roman Army and executed for refusing to leave the Christian faith during the Diclotien Persecutions, so very much the sort of wet martyr that you dislike.
I don't dislike that sort of saint - admirable in its way for sheer bloodymindedness - but, also, he slew a dragon. Badass. And therefore a better alternative than St. Cuthbert or St. Alban. I could back St. Alban as the patron saint of Great Britain, because of his name (I expect he is entirely fictional but I have no objection to that).
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
They're all tying themselves in knots over who said what to whom and when about DV.
That is not the error. The error was *appointing Peter Mandelson*
Keith was asked that question - why? - repeatedly and simply said "I have already apologised for that error of judgement". But can't face into what that was and why.
Putting it simply, the failure was deciding to appoint him, not everything that followed. "Nobody told me he failed DV" is laughable when DV can be overruled and now we have the Cabinet Office arguing that DV wasn't needed at all.
Mandie was Mandie. And they appointed him.
Here's my 30p. Starmer didn't appoint him. McSweeney did. Keith can't answer any more questions because to do so would expose him to the reality that he was not in charge.
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
They're all tying themselves in knots over who said what to whom and when about DV.
That is not the error. The error was *appointing Peter Mandelson*
Keith was asked that question - why? - repeatedly and simply said "I have already apologised for that error of judgement". But can't face into what that was and why.
Putting it simply, the failure was deciding to appoint him, not everything that followed. "Nobody told me he failed DV" is laughable when DV can be overruled and now we have the Cabinet Office arguing that DV wasn't needed at all.
Mandie was Mandie. And they appointed him.
Here's my 30p. Starmer didn't appoint him. McSweeney did. Keith can't answer any more questions because to do so would expose him to the reality that he was not in charge.
I'll hold my hands up; I recall posting that I thought appointing Mandelson might turn out to be a good idea, if only because, apparently, Trump quite liked him (?saw a kindred soul in him) and that might well have turned in UK's interests.
What I didn't realise, and to be fair none of us knew at the time, were the shenanigans going on around the appointment. It would, I suggest, be helpful if Sir K were to a) apologise (again) for the appointment and b) apologise for the said shenanigans and, I suggest, offer Robbins his (or a similar) job. Assuming, of course, he didn't have to sack someone else to do so.
Sir Keir was being questioned on whether it was a good idea to have Mandelson hanging around advising him back in 2023! He knew all the downsides, he just wanted to use Mandy's cunning for his own ends. All we have now is his usual trick of lawyerly pernickety-ness and sleight of hand to distract/bore us over the minutiae of process as a way out of trouble on a technicality
I don’t think Goodwin etc are correct about this. For me a landlord should be able to advertise for specific tenants. Of course there would be uproar from the left if it were ‘white’ or ‘Christian’ instead of Muslim, but so what? They aren’t the left. I think there are far too many Muslims in the UK, but fair enough if people want to stick to their own, that’s human nature. It shows that multiculturalism doesn’t really work, but it never was going to.
This is outrageous. Landlords are illegally advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east, The Telegraph has found.
The property listings feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
This is illegal, is unBritish, and should be shut down immediately.
Can you imagine the total uproar in Westminster & the BBC if landlords were advertising for “whites only” or “Christians only”?!
Here’s a question for you old bean: what exactly is your issue with Muslims?
Don’t bother with the ‘old bean’ nonsense please
I think it is a problem for a country to have competing groups for supremacy, and having so many of a new group that doesn’t really accept the traditional laws or customs of the land is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have an issue with anyone personally on the basis of their religion or colour, I get on with most people and am interested in different cultures, I just think that on a nationwide level it makes for a lot of unnecessary aggravation to have introduced Islam en masse to what was/is a Christian country
Do you object to Hindus, Sikhs and Jews?
Why would I?
Because they have similarly introduced non-Christian beliefs and cultures to the country.
I think the Hindu, Sikh and Jewish culture introduced is smaller in number and not as fundamental as that of Islam. I’ve never looked but I’d guess the level of inter marriage between Christian’s/atheists and Muslims is lower than that between the other religions you mention. Maybe not. I’ll look now
AI says
Muslim marrying Christian/no religion is 2-4% Sikh is 3-5% Hindi 8-10% Jewish 30-40%
Given that there are 4m Muslims, 1m Hindus, 500k Sikhs and 250k Jews in the UK, that seems to back up my instinct; there are millions of Muslims who don’t seem to want to mix with what was considered the native population, compared with a much smaller number both in real terms and as a percentage of the other religions mentioned. Throw in 7/7, Lee Rigby, Westminster & London Bridge, Manchester Arena, the PBunmentionable, and I say, with no offence to the nice Muslims, the sixties, nurses, dentists and so on that on balance I think it was a bad move to have so many here, even if on a one to one level I consider them no differently to anyone else
It seems to me that this discussion needs handling with care. I was brought up in a strongly Jewish part of London, and when young it never crossed my mind that in time anti-Semitism would rise up again as it has. This has happened through multiple factors including the presence of millions of Islamic people, the rise of the far right, the continuing antisemitism of the far left and Israel's damaging and catastrophic policies and actions.
Isam wants to talk about 'too many'. I want to tell you about the little Islamic girl who was bridesmaid to my daughter at her very Christian and churchy wedding and think about what this discussion does to her as she grows up and how it should be conducted.
There was a time when really nice decent people thought there were too many Jewish people in central Europe.
The little girl you mention is an example of someone who may assimilate, but the evidence is that the majority don’t want to. And why would they? I don’t blame them, but it doesn’t make for a happier, more united country than the one they or their parents/grandparents arrived in
Let us for sake of the discussion assume you are right about 'the majority'. The true question, after sharing out a bit of blame for the problem, is what sort of social and political policy platform will maximise the creation of a 'happier and more united country'.
Beats me. I am afraid I think the damage is irreparable, and society with continue to fracture. You are right to say that I am criticising policies past, and have no solution to the problems of now and the future
It’s also quite a nuanced discussion.
Ask yourself why moderate Muslim countries (such as where I live) are no longer funding their citizens to study at UK universities?
Damaging for Labour they are now seen as more sleazy than the last government by more voters than less sleazy.
Though divides on party lines, Conservative and Reform voters think that, Labour and LD and Green voters are still more likely to think the last Tory government more sleazy than this Labour government
For all its ills, this government hasn't yet been caught feeding lucrative government contracts to its mates through some sort of off-grid priority channel
This feels a lot more reflective of the current position to me than those polls giving Reform a few constituencies and the SNP a decent majority.
Note than on these predicted results, Tory leader Russell Findlay would lose his seat. Irony is it suits Mr Findlay if Jackson Carlaw doesn't win in Eastwood, as it may damage his own chances on the West of Scotland list.
One of the seats going to Reform is Aberdeen Deeside (south) which is being contested by Stephen Flynn, currently SNP MP for Aberdeen South
Do you know how extensively the parties have also added their wobbly Constituency MPs to Regional Lists this time?
General speaking a lot of constituency MSP candidates will 'double up' on the list. Unusually the likes of Russell Findlay, along with both Green leaders, are standing on list only. There will be a bun fight for Tory spots as they look to avoid being decimated.
The SNP have 2 sitting MPs contesting this election, Stephen Flynn and Stephen Gethins. If either gets in, their will be Westminster by elections in their seats. Quite a few former SNP MPs standing, mainly on the list. Tommy Shepherd could benefit from the SNP losing some Edinburgh seats as he is number 1 on their Lothian list, whilst Deirdre Brock is up against it in Edinburgh Southern, which is fairly safe Labour.
The SNP only won 2 list seats last time, potentially they could win 0 if they do well on constituencies and poorly on list vote. South and Highlands are best chances for SNP list seats
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
They're all tying themselves in knots over who said what to whom and when about DV.
That is not the error. The error was *appointing Peter Mandelson*
Keith was asked that question - why? - repeatedly and simply said "I have already apologised for that error of judgement". But can't face into what that was and why.
Putting it simply, the failure was deciding to appoint him, not everything that followed. "Nobody told me he failed DV" is laughable when DV can be overruled and now we have the Cabinet Office arguing that DV wasn't needed at all.
Mandie was Mandie. And they appointed him.
Here's my 30p. Starmer didn't appoint him. McSweeney did. Keith can't answer any more questions because to do so would expose him to the reality that he was not in charge.
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
They're all tying themselves in knots over who said what to whom and when about DV.
That is not the error. The error was *appointing Peter Mandelson*
Keith was asked that question - why? - repeatedly and simply said "I have already apologised for that error of judgement". But can't face into what that was and why.
Putting it simply, the failure was deciding to appoint him, not everything that followed. "Nobody told me he failed DV" is laughable when DV can be overruled and now we have the Cabinet Office arguing that DV wasn't needed at all.
Mandie was Mandie. And they appointed him.
Here's my 30p. Starmer didn't appoint him. McSweeney did. Keith can't answer any more questions because to do so would expose him to the reality that he was not in charge.
I'll hold my hands up; I recall posting that I thought appointing Mandelson might turn out to be a good idea, if only because, apparently, Trump quite liked him (?saw a kindred soul in him) and that might well have turned in UK's interests.
What I didn't realise, and to be fair none of us knew at the time, were the shenanigans going on around the appointment. It would, I suggest, be helpful if Sir K were to a) apologise (again) for the appointment and b) apologise for the said shenanigans and, I suggest, offer Robbins his (or a similar) job. Assuming, of course, he didn't have to sack someone else to do so.
Mandy always caused complicated scandals, involving money and access, which led to his resignation.
Anthony Seldon thinks Starmer should bring back even more figures from the Blair era "to make the progressive dream happen", with Blair himself as foregin secretary. It's pure nostalgia.
Damaging for Labour they are now seen as more sleazy than the last government by more voters than less sleazy.
Though divides on party lines, Conservative and Reform voters think that, Labour and LD and Green voters are still more likely to think the last Tory government more sleazy than this Labour government
For all its ills, this government hasn't yet been caught feeding lucrative government contracts to its mates through some sort of off-grid priority channel
Just friends of Epstein in full public gaze?*
* True of Thiel, but really not in the realm of what you have highlighted.
Comments
It is as old as the hills that humans like to divide characters in a story into heroes and villains, it’s easy
Screams “I’ll get you this job come what may”
There are only two economically sane ways to raise tax on business activity. VAT on sales, with a reclaim system like we have so only the end user pays, and Corporation Tax (or similar) on profits.
Everything else - turnover taxes, business rates, taxes on employment etc is stupid and damaging.
The sooner politicians understand this, the soon they have a chance of getting some economic growth back.
Unpatriotic cockwombles
To take it further, some people don't want smokers in their property and say so. Others insist on only male or only female tenants.
I understand those seeking to make political outrage and capital out of this and at the same time I don't.
Should a property owner not have any say in who they choose to have as a tenant? Ideally, there would be no issues but living in the real world (which is more than Goodwin seems to), the old adage of "people like people like themselves" comes to mind.
I suppose it would be easier if discrimination were implicit rather than explicit.
Secondly, there is an academic/quasi academic issue of what would have been the best policy from 1950 to 2025 WRT assimilation and migration, which is all very interesting but brings little to bear on what to do from 2026 and the next 75 years with the population we now have. Isam is being a social historian. he doesn't like what the UK policy has achieved.
But what is interesting is the next question, given where we are about which we have no choice, what best to do. i should think for most PBers the choices lie somewhere between deportation of millions of UK citizens and those with ILR (the far right), and open borders with an indiscriminate welcome mat (Greens in some moods).
An underestimated fact is that Catholics (I am not one) have gone from being a tiny persecuted group regarded as traitors in the late 16th century to a most respected and loyal identity and about four million strong.
For me, that, with all the differences acknowledged, is my model.
He won’t run as leader but I think he might call for Starmer to quit.
https://x.com/ambjapanuk/status/2047231020345249886
Why can’t all ambassadors be more like this guy and less like Peter Mandelson?
The St George was a Palestinian ‘hot take’
BTW as sorry I am for your teams relegation, especially as you seem a decent guy, I did put a fiver on them at 5/4 to go down after a post lf yours here.
Muslim marrying Christian/no religion is 2-4%
Sikh is 3-5%
Hindi 8-10%
Jewish 30-40%
Given that there are 4m Muslims, 1m Hindus, 500k Sikhs and 250k Jews in the UK, that seems to back up my instinct; there are millions of Muslims who don’t seem to want to mix with what was considered the native population, compared with a much smaller number both in real terms and as a percentage of the other religions mentioned. Throw in 7/7, Lee Rigby, Westminster & London Bridge, Manchester Arena, the PBunmentionable, and I say, with no offence to the nice Muslims, the sixties, nurses, dentists and so on that on balance I think it was a bad move to have so many here, even if on a one to one level I consider them no differently to anyone else
And Good morning everybody. Sunny again and warmer.
"Our Father which art in heaven".
(That's the only example which I have to hand, but which is also used for whom.)
Also, St. George slew a dragon. That's fairly badass. Saints are generally fairly wet and are mostly remembered for nothing more worthwhile than getting killed in creative ways or persuading people to be Christian (or, in the case of St. Werburgh, restoring a goose* to full health after it had been eaten - so let's not get snippy about believability). I'm quite pleased we have a saint from the more badass end of the spectrum.
Also, my understanding is that following his slaying of the dragon, he was offered a banquet by grateful townsfolk and then offered the hand of the king's daughter in marriage, or something, and he got a bit embarrassed about all the fuss. A perfect patron saint for England really.
*She specialised in goose based miracles. She also banished all the geese from a village in Northamptonshire - Weedon Bec springs to mind - which is more believable but fails the impressiveness test, I reckon I could have done that if I'd had to, even with 7th century AD technology.
PB autocorrect is strange
But a new caretaker PM and then another new PM? Surely not.
I regularly shop at my local “nice supermarket”. Have done for years. To the extent long term staff and myself are on that “awkward nodding and mumbled hello” phase. Which is still nicer that not being recognised
Anyway the other day I was checking out food and the lady picked up my (very pricey) rack of lamb and she looked at it, then looked at me, then very obviously didn’t scan it and pushed it towards me. Basically giving it me for free
Why?? Maybe it’s because I’m now so old and broken down she took pity. But I doubt it. I’m not that old and decrepit and I regularly buy expensive stuff
Perhaps because I’m local? Maybe. But maybe it’s because I’m
local and white. Because the other day I overheard staff quietly discussing politics and it was pretty clear they were right wing, pro reform, anti migration. Most of the staff are white working class unlike the customers who are 60-70% non white
I should add that, importantly, I have never noticed a shred of racism from staff, they are impeccably polite to everyone. When someone shoplifts they just sigh and tut and look
distressed and I feel sorry for them. Doing a hard day’s work for not much pay and then someone comes in and does that must be heart breaking
So I could be entirely wrong. But maybe I’m right. Are we seeing whites favour whites as they become a minority? You could argue that’s human nature and inevitable. It’s a mirror image of Muslim landlords favouring Muslim tenants, that @isam mentions above
New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee
Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed
Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting
Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting
And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office
What an almighty mess. This is just going to on and on until Starmer is gone.
Isam wants to talk about 'too many'. I want to tell you about the little Islamic girl who was bridesmaid to my daughter at her very Christian and churchy wedding and think about what this discussion does to her as she grows up and how it should be conducted.
There was a time when really nice decent people thought there were too many Jewish people in central Europe.
It's nearly time for a First Year Anniversary ex-Councillor Census.
The most-canonical list (hosted by Mark Pack) says that of the 677 Reform Councillors elected in May 2026, 74 have now left the Party.
That is 11%, or one in nine.
There are a couple more bubbling under, but I don't think we will reach 1.5 per week, which would be 78.
Nonetheless, that is fairly unprecedented. If anyone has comparable numbers for other parties, I'm interested.
A brilliant interview, well worth watching in full, but the relevant part is the 7mins I mentioned
https://youtu.be/nN6sTBSAp-A?si=fkJb4IRtdj9X7oWb
There are people who specify women-only. Sometimes this is because the landlord is a single woman and wouldn't be happy with inviting a strange man to live in their house. I think that's a very understandable exception to the rule. Sometimes, though, the ad might specify that young women are preferred, and that can be because the landlord is a man hoping to take rental payment on a not exclusively financial basis - not something we should be relaxed about.
I'm sure that a devout and intolerant Muslim would have found it difficult to rent a room in my house when I took in lodgers, due to us often eating sausages and bacon. And, similarly, if I were renting a room from a devout and intolerant Muslim landlord who sought to prevent me from eating bacon I would have found that somewhat inconvenient, though not as inconvenient as when I rented a room from a landlady who asked me to wash dishes in cold rainwater, was upset at people flushing the loo after a piss, and would turn off the hot water boiler without telling anyone, so that showers would be cold if you forgot to turn it on in advance.
Now, putting in an advert that tenants would be forbidden from cooking pork would have largely the same effect as asking for Muslims-only, but it leaves open the possibility of a vegan non-Muslim tenant and is more acceptable than excluding people on the basis of identity.
I'm really disappointed in posters like stodge or battery correct horse who are seeking to excuse or deflect from discrimination, apparently just because it's a far-right arsehole who is pointing it out.
That is not the error. The error was *appointing Peter Mandelson*
Keith was asked that question - why? - repeatedly and simply said "I have already apologised for that error of judgement". But can't face into what that was and why.
Putting it simply, the failure was deciding to appoint him, not everything that followed. "Nobody told me he failed DV" is laughable when DV can be overruled and now we have the Cabinet Office arguing that DV wasn't needed at all.
Mandie was Mandie. And they appointed him.
Here's my 30p. Starmer didn't appoint him. McSweeney did. Keith can't answer any more questions because to do so would expose him to the reality that he was not in charge.
But it was returning Crusader Knights that popularised St George in England, and paradoxically the lack of a local shrine was part of the reason, other rivals being particularly associated with regions of England.
As I’ve said repeatedly, Starmer should have gone for appointing Mandelson. All of this would have been put to bed with a new leader.
Starmer has made it worse for himself in every possible way.
Capability Brown
Gertrude Jekyll
Sir Christopher Wren
Elizabeth Fry
Morning all
Robbins refused to hand over documents that were needed to be able to comply with the Humble Address .
https://ballotbox.scot/survation-april-2026/
Projected seats along the lines of:
SNP 57
Ref 21
LAB 18
Con 13
Green 11
LD 9
This feels a lot more reflective of the current position to me than those polls giving Reform a few constituencies and the SNP a decent majority.
Note than on these predicted results, Tory leader Russell Findlay would lose his seat. Irony is it suits Mr Findlay if Jackson Carlaw doesn't win in Eastwood, as it may damage his own chances on the West of Scotland list.
One of the seats going to Reform is Aberdeen Deeside (south) which is being contested by Stephen Flynn, currently SNP MP for Aberdeen South
Jennie Formby, Labour’s former general secretary, says she has joined Greens
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/22/jennie-formby-labour-former-general-secretary-green-party
He’s getting civil service people to argue about process when the issue is he took a risk and it failed. He should have quit for his decision.
He says he’s sorry and has taken accountability. But how?
And Charles Bradlaugh who was the last person imprisoned in the cell under Big Ben in 188x during his campaign to be allowed to Affirm to be an MP, not swear on a Holy Book.
And in that same spirit, Thomas Helwys, who (I think it was he) was a very early modern campaigner for freedom of thought. He was a Baptist Minister who wrote in around 1610 that everyone should have complete freedom of religion, including atheists not to have one.
Facilitating more right wing Governments. That is very Corbyn too.
What I didn't realise, and to be fair none of us knew at the time, were the shenanigans going on around the appointment. It would, I suggest, be helpful if Sir K were to a) apologise (again) for the appointment and b) apologise for the said shenanigans and, I suggest, offer Robbins his (or a similar) job. Assuming, of course, he didn't have to sack someone else to do so.
Sounds ideal.
How do you intend to celebrate it?
Ambushed by cake, my ****!
Latest party leader net favourability ratings, April 2026
Kemi Badenoch: -21
Nigel Farage: -38
Keir Starmer: -45
Ed Davey: -3 (37% DK)
Zack Polanski: -9 (39% DK)
Farage rapidly approaching Starmer levels of hatred.
New Labour leader therefore might do rather well at least for a day.
Although if I do end up with a fuker as my constituency MSP I will enjoy watching them fall.
He’s totally immersed in British culture and seems to be enjoying every minute of it.
I’d love to know where the Japanese found him.
If you are looking for an excuse to join Nebula, they are there a week early.
So far he has featured Loughborough Bell Foundry Trust, paragliding in Rutland, University of Lincoln's crime scene house, and Mines Rescue Training in Mansfield Woodhouse near here.
https://www.youtube.com/@TomScottGo/videos
I could back St. Alban as the patron saint of Great Britain, because of his name (I expect he is entirely fictional but I have no objection to that).
Ask yourself why moderate Muslim countries (such as where I live) are no longer funding their citizens to study at UK universities?
https://x.com/eyakoby/status/2031000429547376745
The SNP have 2 sitting MPs contesting this election, Stephen Flynn and Stephen Gethins. If either gets in, their will be Westminster by elections in their seats. Quite a few former SNP MPs standing, mainly on the list. Tommy Shepherd could benefit from the SNP losing some Edinburgh seats as he is number 1 on their Lothian list, whilst Deirdre Brock is up against it in Edinburgh Southern, which is fairly safe Labour.
The SNP only won 2 list seats last time, potentially they could win 0 if they do well on constituencies and poorly on list vote. South and Highlands are best chances for SNP list seats
Why would it be different this time?
https://x.com/NewStatesman/status/2047224231197368774
I think Banff is the best chance of a Reform constituency win, but you'll know better than me! Would all depend if the Tory vote collapses I guess
* True of Thiel, but really not in the realm of what you have highlighted.