politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nick Palmer says both sides in the referendum have got to s

This over could cost England the match. Need some really good death bowling now.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

tlg86 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

From the speech Nick Palmer recommended from Alan Johnson. Here is what he says about the 1975 referendum.

“It’s worth mentioning two aspects from that campaign which resulted in an overwhelming majority to stay in the European Community. The first is to expose the nonsense that one sometimes hears from the Eurosceptics that the British people thought they were voting for a market. All the debate on both sides in 1975 was about political union. Indeed, the creation of a European Parliament was central to the argument.”

So what is the evidence that political union was the main theme of the 1975 referendum?
Here is a link to the text from the Government official leaflet.
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm
It has 50 mentions of the “market” and has no mention of the phrase “political union” it is just not there.

This is a blatent re-writing history. But since no one notices Alan Johnson no one objects.

It seems a bit of a silly argument. The whole thing about people being tricked in 1975 is that it was an argument for having another referendum. Well, we're having that referendum so let's get on with it.

Johnson is stating that voters had presented to them by both sides that we were staying/getting into a political union. Where is the evidence?

Oh, I'm not arguing against your point. I'm simply saying that whatever the right and wrongs of 1975 it doesn't really matter and if Alan Johnson is arguing about that then it says to me he has little to say about current affairs. I suppose the only relevance of 1975 is that us on the Out side could argue that they were lying then and they are lying now.

MikeSmithson said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.

Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.

Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man....
PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?

Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).

Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.

You clearly know little about how the French helped following the Exocet attacks on the British fleet.

But the Johnson claim is about preventing Argentine aggression. The French (and others) did not achieve that. Now if the Johnson claim was that they helped to get them out under the Treaty of Rome.... that would be a different claim subject to the wording it contains.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

MikeSmithson said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.

Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.

Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man....
PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?

Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).

Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.

You clearly know little about how the French helped following the Exocet attacks on the British fleet.

But the Johnson claim is about preventing Argentine aggression. The French (and others) did not achieve that. Now if the Johnson claim was that they helped to get them out under the Treaty of Rome.... that would be a different claim subject to the wording it contains.

You're over-analysing. The Argentinians' previous experience of trying it on was that the two major European powers stuck together. That's a deterrent.

tlg86 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

tlg86 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

From the speech Nick Palmer recommended from Alan Johnson. Here is what he says about the 1975 referendum.

“It’s worth mentioning two aspects from that campaign which resulted in an overwhelming majority to stay in the European Community. The first is to expose the nonsense that one sometimes hears from the Eurosceptics that the British people thought they were voting for a market. All the debate on both sides in 1975 was about political union. Indeed, the creation of a European Parliament was central to the argument.”

So what is the evidence that political union was the main theme of the 1975 referendum?
Here is a link to the text from the Government official leaflet.
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm
It has 50 mentions of the “market” and has no mention of the phrase “political union” it is just not there.

This is a blatent re-writing history. But since no one notices Alan Johnson no one objects.

It seems a bit of a silly argument. The whole thing about people being tricked in 1975 is that it was an argument for having another referendum. Well, we're having that referendum so let's get on with it.

Johnson is stating that voters had presented to them by both sides that we were staying/getting into a political union. Where is the evidence?

Oh, I'm not arguing against your point. I'm simply saying that whatever the right and wrongs of 1975 it doesn't really matter and if Alan Johnson is arguing about that then it says to me he has little to say about current affairs. I suppose the only relevance of 1975 is that us on the Out side could argue that they were lying then and they are lying now.

" I suppose the only relevance of 1975 is that us on the Out side could argue that they were lying then and they are lying now."

If the evidence supports it. Past actions and past threats are part of the argument. Witness the "if we do not join the euro" line from many in the REMAIN camp.

@SkyBet: CALIFORNIA CHROME wins the Dubai World Cup!

What a catch!

Wish that was Mathews that went.

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.

Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.

Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man....
PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?

Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).

Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.

You said "I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands." I was just pointing out that - to use your phrase - One of the Treaty of Rome signatories was actually a lot more helpful to us during the Falklands war than the US.

Tbf we did get Sidewinders from the US which were quite useful.

rcs1000 said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

What a catch!

Damn it! Did I just make a terrible error. Now I have to turn the radio on again...

It's gonna be close!

MikeSmithson said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.

Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.

Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man....
PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?

Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).

Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.

You clearly know little about how the French helped following the Exocet attacks on the British fleet.

And you clearly don't know about how the French continued to help Argentina throughout the war including making sure their exocet launchers were working..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975

That is not to say that the official French position was not to help the UK but according to that article there were sections of French establishment who were helping the Argentines.

Should never have got 2 there.

WHAT A BALL.....

Underarmers now :-)

HYUFD said:

I disagree, No won in Scotland by relentlessly plugging fear and the risks of breakaway and economic dangers, Remain needs to do the same. In referendums passion and positivity rarely are decisive what is decisive is people looking at the risks involved and the threat to their bank balance

But the Yes vote kept increasing over the campaign period. The fear approach slowed down Yes's momentum, it didn't make people vote No.

In general yes voters made up their mind far later than no voters so undecided people listenened to months of project fear then decided on yes.

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

What an over from the big Kiwi Ginger Nut.....

15 to defend favours the bowler

It was actually the over before that won it. 2 wickets, and obviously not just the 2 wickets, but the 2 dot balls.

Nexst match determines our SF opponents.

Mr. Pubgoer, hopefully this time they didn't leave vast quantities of military hardware for the Daeshbags to claim.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.

Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.

Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man....
PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?

Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).

Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.

You said "I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands." I was just pointing out that - to use your phrase - One of the Treaty of Rome signatories was actually a lot more helpful to us during the Falklands war than the US.

Tbf we did get Sidewinders from the US which were quite useful.

According to this article, cited by me in pretty well complete ignorance, that's a fine example of British understatement.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/sep/06/falklands.world

All those 'young people' in that picture look comparatively posh.

Y0kel said:

All those 'young people' in that picture look comparatively posh.

This one time when I was on my gap yahhhhhhh...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhCjGcCMOxU

F##k me....

Then, in May 2015, when Mexican forces tried to push into CJNG territory, the crime group responded by mounting a vicious counterstrike: burning gas stations, blocking roads with flaming semi-trucks, and using an RPG to blow a twin-engine Cougar attack chopper out of the sky, killing eight soldiers and a member of the federal police.

“The cartel uses such displays in order to shock the authorities,” says criminologist Benitez, when asked about El Mencho’s strong-arm tactics. “It’s a way of warning government to back off, and to show them who’s the boss.”

As for high-powered weapons like the shoulder-fired rocket launcher used by cartel gunmen to take down the chopper, Benitez says it was “probably bought on the black market in the U.S.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/26/fighting-mexico-s-new-super-cartel.html

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.

Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.

Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man....
PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?

Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).

Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...

Mr. Urquhart, still not like the imam has recently been praising an extremist killer, is it?

Oh:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35893123

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.

Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.

Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man....
PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?

Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).

Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...

No. That is kind of unfair both ways, My understanding is that the exocets had already been dispatched (or even received) so that was out of Mitterand's control. As soon as the request came through he prevented any further sales.

The guidance codes made no difference. Hence the reason the Argentines managed to hit 3 ships, sinking two of them.

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.

Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.

Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man....
PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?

Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).

Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...

Yes, I also heard that.
Also I heard there might have been some useful strategic (satellite or otherwise electronic?) information from the US.

Was it ever revealed what the motive behind the Mosque reader who got killed? Initially there was coded language of a racist attack, but then they arrested a Muslim.

Y0kel said:

This guy charged in Belgium, Faycal C by the way is a journalist..of a kind.

I saw the picture of him with a mic and I did wonder. Oh FFS...

Faisal C. is in the crosshairs of the Brussels police for months, report several Belgian media. According to the site Rtl.be , he was reported to police by humanitarian associations in September. He allegedly tried to recruit migrants Maximilian Park to join jihadist networks. According to "Le Soir" , the mayor of the city Yvan Mayeur, denounced on many occasions his "activism" to the prosecutor and Justice. Recital as "dangerous", he even arrested several times administratively.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/attentats-terroristes-bruxelles/20160326.OBS7216/attentats-de-bruxelles-ce-que-l-on-sait-sur-faycal-c.html

'They obviously weren't that useless.'

Useless enough to kill what was it, about 60 British sailors?

SeanT said:

The Asad Shah story is heartbreaking.

A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter

So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.

Death for apostasy, in a Glasgow corner shop.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3509367/Muslim-shopkeeper-stabbed-death-hours-posted-happy-Easter-message.html

I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.

Just seen this story myself in the newsagents on the front of the Mail.

Appalling.

I guess you don't know many Muslims.

Y0kel said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.



Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man....
PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...

They obviously weren't that useless.

Sean T.

Its a religion that for far too many of its adherents currently perpetuates whinging victimhood and as a result justification for violence against innocents.

Any political, social or religious case that perpetuates such a victimhood is dangerous. In this country, right now far too many Muslims believe there is some kind of cause and wrap it in victimhood. There isn't such a cause.

This is ably supported by far too many of this country's political class who think that just because they know some Islington lawyer who happens to be Muslim that qualifies them to urge everyone to be tolerant.

Tolerance for the language that excuses Islamist violence, that talks about economic factors like they are a contributing factor is just balls. Give them no excuse, no if or buts. This country does not have a suppressive environment for the Muslim population, they are not persecuted as a populous by the state or others.

This guy charged in Belgium, Faycal C, by the way is a journalist..of a kind.

tyson said:

I guess you don't know many Muslims.

Y0kel said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...

They obviously weren't that useless.

Sean T.

Its a religion that for far too many of its adherents currently perpetuates whinging victimhood and as a result justification for violence against innocents.

Any political, social or religious case that perpetuates such a victimhood is dangerous. In this country, right now far too many Muslims believe there is some kind of cause and wrap it in victimhood. There isn't such a cause.

This is ably supported by far too many of this country's political class who think that just because they know some Islington lawyer who happens to be Muslim that qualifies them to urge everyone to be tolerant.

Tolerance for the language that excuses Islamist violence, that talks about economic factors like they are a contributing factor is just balls. Give them no excuse, no if or buts. This country does not have a suppressive environment for the Muslim population, they are not persecuted as a populous by the state or others.

This guy charged in Belgium, Faycal C, by the way is a journalist..of a kind.

I suspect I've met many more than you have, both in the UK and in the Middle East. Ive worked with them on a number of occasions.

Having said that, in 1939, if I was around, I'd probably not have known too many Germans but I would have known that Nazism was a dogshit pesudo-religious philosophy that represented a danger.

Do the French have it right? Really? France and Belgium have a much bigger problem with disaffected young Muslims than we do in the UK.

Bromptonaut said:

RoyalBlue said:

SeanT said:

The Asad Shah story is heartbreaking.

A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter

So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.

Death for apostasy, in a Glasgow corner shop.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3509367/Muslim-shopkeeper-stabbed-death-hours-posted-happy-Easter-message.html

I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.

A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.

Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?

An end to all denominational schools. Education should be entirely free of religion. The French have it right.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2013/09/religion-and-education-england-and-france

Scott_P said:

@SkyBet: CALIFORNIA CHROME wins the Dubai World Cup!

If there were any bookies here they would be quite upset at that result - the horse everyone was talking about all week. The owner will be happy though, $10m prize to the winner!

RoyalBlue said:

Bromptonaut said:

RoyalBlue said:

SeanT said:

The Asad Shah story is heartbreaking.

A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter

So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.

Death for apostasy, in a Glasgow corner shop.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3509367/Muslim-shopkeeper-stabbed-death-hours-posted-happy-Easter-message.html

I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.

A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.

Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?

An end to all denominational schools. Education should be entirely free of religion. The French have it right.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2013/09/religion-and-education-england-and-france

Why should Anglican, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh schools be abolished? What have they done wrong?

Because some people are afraid to say what they really think
At least SeanT will tell you that Muslims as an undifferentiated blob of people are the problem

Bromptonaut said:

RoyalBlue said:

SeanT said:

The Asad Shah story is heartbreaking.

A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter

So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.

Death for apostasy, in a Glasgow corner shop.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3509367/Muslim-shopkeeper-stabbed-death-hours-posted-happy-Easter-message.html

I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.

A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.

Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?

An end to all denominational schools. Education should be entirely free of religion. The French have it right.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2013/09/religion-and-education-england-and-france

That article contains a quote from professional propagandist and rentagob Keith Porteous Wood, who is not a secularist or a humanist but a straightforward anticlericalist along the lines of a Robespierre. He is also dishonest, self-righteous, arrogant and rude. That in itself should alert you to the fact the article cannot be taken seriously.

I know of only a handful of schools that 'promote evangelisation' (the way he says it, you would think the whole point of RS is proselytisation, which it certainly isn't but given his profound ignorance of all subjects to do with religion, is probably something he doesn't realise) and ironically all of them are officially fully secular schools under LEA control.

France has a whole different ethos, one that has actually been remarkably unsuccessful at dealing with religious tension or even keeping religion in the private sphere. As a result - helped somewhat by the fact that the government pays for the upkeep of all religious buildings erected before 1905 - all major religions in France are happy to let the government dance about making grand gestures like this one that are meaningless in practice. When you do get far-right activists trying to force Muslims to eat pork - which has happened - the Human Rights Laws deal with it instead.

Moreover, I see no mention in that article of how we would afford the closure/takeover of all religious schools.

Finally, the French education system is designed to prioritise rote learning and it has no effective pastoral system, unlike his country. That's something the churches tend to provide instead and therefore limits the effects of a theoretically fully secular education system.

PS- it's also one reason why the French system is not very good.

tyson said:

So, if you know lots of them, why do you come out with your sweeping generalisations about what Muslims think?

And quite frankly to equate Islam to Nazism says much more about you and how your narrow, xenophobic, blinkered, intellectually skewed brain works.

Y0kel said:

tyson said:

I guess you don't know many Muslims.

Y0kel said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

NickPalmer said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.

There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression."
How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.

My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.

I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...

They obviously weren't that useless.

I suspect I've met many more than you have, both in the UK and in the Middle East. Ive worked with them on a number of occasions.

Having said that, in 1939, if I was around, I'd probably not have known too many Germans but I would have known that Nazism was a dogshit pesudo-religious philosophy that represented a danger.

And you've failed to read my post. You love to see yourself as some contrarian..perhaps with a moniker named after a rapist and fruitcake...such an association is always a sign of an individuals weakness at their core....but you have nothing other than contrarian talk that will jemmy everything to fit your world view such as it is. Good luck to you, it will achieve nothing.

Afghanistan vs Windies later I see -

Should be great to watch the Chris Gayle highlights. Will he get a date though ?

Pulpstar said:

Afghanistan vs Windies later I see -

Should be great to watch the Chris Gayle highlights. Will he get a date though ?

Every opposition team really should just employ some pretty ladies to continually walk around near-ish the bowlers arm...

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Germany going easy on us...

Neuer - Can, Rüdiger, Hummels, Hector - Kroos, Khedira - Müller, Özil, Reus - Gomez

If one of the England players can injure Ozil, that would be much appreciated.

We've got double game weeks coming up in the fantasy football, don't f' this up for me.

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

Moreover, I see no mention in that article of how we would afford the closure/takeover of all religious schools.

Finally, the French education system is designed to prioritise rote learning and it has no effective pastoral system, unlike his country. That's something the churches tend to provide instead and therefore limits the effects of a theoretically fully secular education system.

PS- it's also one reason why the French system is not very good.

And it doesn't matter one jot who said this (religious education is unwise), it's clearly right. If you want to hold irrational beliefs then it's up to you. We shouldn't ever teach irrationality though. That means we should never teach religion. However 'religious studies' is another thing entirely - a course briefing the unwary as to how stupid people can be seems eminently sensible.

Religious studies should perhaps also focus on the incredible success that religion has had in keeping people in order. We wouldn't want the masses to do something rash like think would we!

edit:i had to cut a lot of stuff to get this to post - refer back

RE in his first couple of years at secondary (Grammar) school has persuaded my grandson to atheism.

Sean_F said:

Omnium, most denominational schools teach things like English, Maths, French, etc. With considerable success, judging by their results.

Bromptonaut, good luck with trying to ban parents from passing on their beliefs, religious, political, or ethical, to their children.

I really do think that calls to ban denominational schools are pretty totalitarian. Almost as if children are seen as the wards of the State.

I don't doubt for one moment the high quality of the education that many religious schools give. They'd be better off, in my view, if nonsense wasn't an additional element on the curriculum though.

I don't like a ban either - you could opt in to nonsense lessons if you chose.

ydoethur said:

surbiton said:

Did anyone see the hapless Nicky Morgan on the telly today ?

I try to avoid such things. Almost as bad for my blood pressure as thinking about the campaigns of the NSS.

You are very wise. I caught the report while waiting for the cricket and she was beyond awful!

Sandpit said:

If there were any bookies here they would be quite upset at that result - the horse everyone was talking about all week. The owner will be happy though, $10m prize to the winner!

Didn't start favourite on the exchanges, and the saddle slipped badly during the race, but a handy 7/4 return

Oh my goodness

@RedHotSquirrel Hi Robert look at this! https://t.co/YQZsfuS4xB Yes its the BOMB MAKER!

Merkel and the terrorist selfie

Plato_Says said:

Oh my goodness

@RedHotSquirrel Hi Robert look at this! https://t.co/YQZsfuS4xB Yes its the BOMB MAKER!

Merkel and the terrorist selfie

It appears to be untrue.

http://www.dw.com/en/refugee-saddened-by-comparison-with-brussels-bomber/a-19143918

He does have a lovely new iPhone though.

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

Omnium said:

ydoethur said:

Moreover, I see no mention in that article of how we would afford the closure/takeover of all religious schools.

Finally, the French education system is designed to prioritise rote learning and it has no effective pastoral system, unlike his country. That's something the churches tend to provide instead and therefore limits the effects of a theoretically fully secular education system.

PS- it's also one reason why the French system is not very good.

And it doesn't matter one jot who said this (religious education is unwise), it's clearly right. If you want to hold irrational beliefs then it's up to you. We shouldn't ever teach irrationality though. That means we should never teach religion. However 'religious studies' is another thing entirely - a course briefing the unwary as to how stupid people can be seems eminently sensible.

Religious studies should perhaps also focus on the incredible success that religion has had in keeping people in order. We wouldn't want the masses to do something rash like think would we!

edit:i had to cut a lot of stuff to get this to post - refer back

The point Omnium is that you are yourself proving your own point wrong. Religious studies, ever since it ceased to be divinity in about 1950, had been about what religions believe. It is, as a diehard atheist lecturer of mine once commented, a valuable subject for that reason.

Wood wants it to be banned from schools. This is based on a burning, visceral hatred of religion and apparently a complete lack of knowledge of what it consists of. He is, in fact, along with Richard Dawkins and Richard Carrier, one of the more irrational fundamentalists I know of, frantically trying to fit facts to his arguments (as in the case of education). The fact that their fundamentalism is atheist in nature is irrelevant - it merely makes them more arrogant.

The reason I compared him to Robespierre is that his attitude is almost identical to that of the politicians of the Third Republic, admirers of the Revolution, who came up with the original dog's breakfast that is French educational and clerical policy.

i don't quite see how I'm proving myself wrong. I've also responded to to Sean_F that I see some benefit in understanding the views of others.

Atheism can be as fundamentalist as any old religion. If that's what you meant then you're entirely right. I think though that there's a 'careful atheist' position that should be the default.

So..

Was there a creator? We don't know
Are there beings that are beyond us? Almost certainly 'yes'.

(Chinese delivery arrived, so fill the rest in for yourselves)

But that's agnosticism. Not atheism. For the rest, I am happy to accept your position as stated.

I hope you enjoy the Chinese.