It always amazes me that there is a sizable Christian community in Pakistan. I think it is around 2%, which would be 4 million Christians.
It used to be much more as a percentage. But gradually they have emigrated to Canada, the US , Australia etc.
Cricketers like D'Souza, Mathias, Sharpe were Pakistani test players. Youhana, of course, converted to Islam.
I believe they are the ONLY 4 to play for Pakistan. And i think 2 of those were actually Indian by birth.
Indian, by birth ? If you take that logic every Pakistani adult at that time [ late 50s ] were "Indian by birth".
Well one was born in Goa, which was Portuguese at the time and the other is described as Anglo-Indian, but yes was born in what is now Paksitan.
For 4 Christians, 3 Hindus in total have played for Pakistan I believe.
In the piece I alluded to earlier, about being Sajid Javid as PM, I pointed out that a recent captain of the England cricket team was an Indian born Muslim, and most of the country didn't give a feck, all they were concerned about was, was he a good player/captain.
He isn't a good cricket commentator.
I think that's very unfair - Nasser Hussain cares and thinks deeply about cricket.
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
Actually it was originally the other way round; Anglo-Saxons slaughtering the resident Celtic population, particularly the men.
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I met one who thought we should remain in, as it would mean we could stand together against Russia.
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
See, that'll just anger everyone - you've suggested the Remain side are panicking, angering them, but also conflated the EU with Europe, angering Leavers.
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
Actually it was originally the other way round; Anglo-Saxons slaughtering the resident Celtic population, particularly the men.
Probably not as we are mostly genetically identical with our supposedly celtic ancestors rather than continental saxons. There is surprisingly little evidence of conquest by Anglo-Saxons at all. Read "Britain AD" by Francis Pryor full the full story, but this article covers a lot of the ground:
I haven't come across any Leavers among the people I know. But, to be fair, I also haven't come across that many people who really care that much.
I am a Remainer - not because I am a passionate EUophile, but because I don't get why I should potentially give up freedoms I currently have for a completely unknown and unknowable prospectus. That said, I am pretty sure I'm in the minority.
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
Actually it was originally the other way round; Anglo-Saxons slaughtering the resident Celtic population, particularly the men.
Probably not as we are mostly genetically identical with our supposedly celtic ancestors rather than continental saxons. There is surprisingly little evidence of conquest by Anglo-Saxons at all. Read "Britain AD" by Francis Pryor full the full story, but this article covers a lot of the ground:
I think you go a bit far in saying there is surprisingly little evidence of an invasion. It would be more accurate to say there is at best limited evidence for a mass migration.
However you cut it, it is fairly clear that there were major invasions of the British Isles by the Saxons, then the Vikings, then the Normans. What has been argued (and that article puts forward) is that this only changed the elites, much as the Roman invasion caused not an ethnic cleansing but a transfer of power and an imposition of a foreign army and government.
I am not sure I would go as far as Pryor on language, for instance, speaking as somebody who knows Welsh and English as well as some Irish. There is to my mind a clear difference between them that can't easily be explained without a fairly dramatic foreign importation from somewhere. But, as with French, that may have been imposed from above rather than raised from below.
It is also worth noting that in the last fifty years historians have become less enamoured of mass migration theories for antiquity even as mass migration has taken off around them like never before. The ancient Celtic migrations were first to go - these just follow the set pattern.
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
Actually it was originally the other way round; Anglo-Saxons slaughtering the resident Celtic population, particularly the men.
Probably not as we are mostly genetically identical with our supposedly celtic ancestors rather than continental saxons. There is surprisingly little evidence of conquest by Anglo-Saxons at all. Read "Britain AD" by Francis Pryor full the full story, but this article covers a lot of the ground:
I haven't come across any Leavers among the people I know. But, to be fair, I also haven't come across that many people who really care that much.
I am a Remainer - not because I am a passionate EUophile, but because I don't get why I should potentially give up freedoms I currently have for a completely unknown and unknowable prospectus. That said, I am pretty sure I'm in the minority.
Looking at your last paragraph, isn't that illogical?
I should potentially give up freedoms I currently have for a completely unknown and unknowable prospectus.
If it is unknown, how do you know it is unworkable? How do you know you re giving up freedoms? How do you know you are not gaining freedoms?
I haven't come across any Leavers among the people I know. But, to be fair, I also haven't come across that many people who really care that much.
I am a Remainer - not because I am a passionate EUophile, but because I don't get why I should potentially give up freedoms I currently have for a completely unknown and unknowable prospectus. That said, I am pretty sure I'm in the minority.
Looking at your last paragraph, isn't that illogical?
I should potentially give up freedoms I currently have for a completely unknown and unknowable prospectus.
If it is unknown, how do you know it is unworkable? How do you know you re giving up freedoms? How do you know you are not gaining freedoms?
Has anyone considered placing a wager on Paddy Power's HOW BIG IS DONALD TRUMP'S MANHOOD (when quote "standing to attention") market ? My natural bashfulness prevents me from going into details, but suffice it to say that a couple of the possible options appear somewhat unlikely. All bets will be declared void if, and again I quote, "It is not revealed by the end of 2016."
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
Actually it was originally the other way round; Anglo-Saxons slaughtering the resident Celtic population, particularly the men.
Probably not as we are mostly genetically identical with our supposedly celtic ancestors rather than continental saxons. There is surprisingly little evidence of conquest by Anglo-Saxons at all. Read "Britain AD" by Francis Pryor full the full story, but this article covers a lot of the ground:
I think you go a bit far in saying there is surprisingly little evidence of an invasion. It would be more accurate to say there is at best limited evidence for a mass migration.
However you cut it, it is fairly clear that there were major invasions of the British Isles by the Saxons, then the Vikings, then the Normans. What has been argued (and that article puts forward) is that this only changed the elites, much as the Roman invasion caused not an ethnic cleansing but a transfer of power and an imposition of a foreign army and government.
I am not sure I would go as far as Pryor on language, for instance, speaking as somebody who knows Welsh and English as well as some Irish. There is to my mind a clear difference between them that can't easily be explained without a fairly dramatic foreign importation from somewhere. But, as with French, that may have been imposed from above rather than raised from below.
It is also worth noting that in the last fifty years historians have become less enamoured of mass migration theories for antiquity even as mass migration has taken off around them like never before. The ancient Celtic migrations were first to go - these just follow the set pattern.
I suspect tha, as far as the Normans were concerned, the main effect ws on the "ruling classes", and had little effect on the ordinary people.
The Saxon, Viking and Norman conquests saw elites vanquished and replaced, but little changed further down the scale. The majority just adapted - or were forced to adapt - to their new rulers. We don't see it because almost everyone outside the elite (and the church) was illiterate.
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
Actually it was originally the other way round; Anglo-Saxons slaughtering the resident Celtic population, particularly the men.
Probably not as we are mostly genetically identical with our supposedly celtic ancestors rather than continental saxons. There is surprisingly little evidence of conquest by Anglo-Saxons at all. Read "Britain AD" by Francis Pryor full the full story, but this article covers a lot of the ground:
Thanks for that, but isn't much of the genetic material maternal?
50%...plus mitochondrial DNA.
But by genetic studies of the exclusively male Y chromosome, it is possible to identify the degree that male ancestry changed, and the answer is very little.
There are fairly clear records of viking invasions, but anglo-saxon vs Romano-British battle sites are vanishingly rare. Also "Anglo-Saxon" settlements are often contemporaneous with "Celtic" ones with no evidence of conflict.
Much of what we believe of our own history is much less certain than some would have it!
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
Actually it was originally the other way round; Anglo-Saxons slaughtering the resident Celtic population, particularly the men.
Probably not as we are mostly genetically identical with our supposedly celtic ancestors rather than continental saxons. There is surprisingly little evidence of conquest by Anglo-Saxons at all. Read "Britain AD" by Francis Pryor full the full story, but this article covers a lot of the ground:
I think you go a bit far in saying there is surprisingly little evidence of an invasion. It would be more accurate to say there is at best limited evidence for a mass migration.
However you cut it, it is fairly clear that there were major invasions of the British Isles by the Saxons, then the Vikings, then the Normans. What has been argued (and that article puts forward) is that this only changed the elites, much as the Roman invasion caused not an ethnic cleansing but a transfer of power and an imposition of a foreign army and government.
I am not sure I would go as far as Pryor on language, for instance, speaking as somebody who knows Welsh and English as well as some Irish. There is to my mind a clear difference between them that can't easily be explained without a fairly dramatic foreign importation from somewhere. But, as with French, that may have been imposed from above rather than raised from below.
It is also worth noting that in the last fifty years historians have become less enamoured of mass migration theories for antiquity even as mass migration has taken off around them like never before. The ancient Celtic migrations were first to go - these just follow the set pattern.
I suspect tha, as far as the Normans were concerned, the main effect ws on the "ruling classes", and had little effect on the ordinary people.
I'm not a militant atheist like Dawkins, but I can see where he's coming from. I have two relatives whose lives have IMO been seriously damaged by religion - one gave up his job to go to "study" in the Edgar Cayce foundation in the US. When he finally saw through them, after giving them lots of money, he adopted a series of other beliefs - healing pyramids, for instance - and every time he stopped believing in something wacky, he blamed himself for not understanding what God was trying to tell him. Another relative has tormented herself all her life by the belief that God thinks her wicked (partly because her horrible parents persuaded the local parson to tell her she was heading for hell because she wasn't more obedient).
The ability of the harsher religions to persuade people that everything bad that happens is THEIR FAULT seems to me pretty nasty, and if Dawkins et al can persuade people to ignore that stuff, more power to his elbow.
The Saxon, Viking and Norman conquests saw elites vanquished and replaced, but little changed further down the scale. The majority just adapted - or were forced to adapt - to their new rulers. We don't see it because almost everyone outside the elite (and the church) was illiterate.
England in 1066 was one of the most prosperous and peaceful countries in western Europe thanks to two generations of relative order. English silver was widely used as currency across northern and western Europe and there was already a strong trade in wool to Flanders.
The Normans destroyed all that through widespread land confiscations, punitive taxation and brutal repression. By the mid 12th Century, England was in a terrible state, ravaged by famine and plague and the on-off warfare of the Stephen/Matilda era.
However we view the Norman Conquest from the hindsight of nearly 1,000 years, it was a catastrophe for England and the English at the time.
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
I'm no Conservative so I don't have a dog in the "who follows Dave ?" race and nor am I a fan of Boris whose tenure as London Mayor has been a success in terms of the centralisation of power within the Mayor's own office (taking over the Police and TfL and effectively re-nationalising the suburban train services) and the self-aggrandisement of Boris (aided by the Evening Standard which has been simperingly loyal throughout the last eight years).
My observation is Boris will try to say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear. That's the mark of the populist, unlike Nicky Morgan, who at least tried to argue her case in the lion's den.
The problem is Boris thinks he can outsmart or outcharm any and every audience but Commons Select Committees are impervious in a way the public aren't. His inconsistencies and inabilities are therefore laid bare and he is exposed as the waste of space he really is.
My fear is the public will take to his third-rate clown act and stop thinking or asking questions. Rather like Trump, Boris doesn't do defensive and doesn't like to be seen to be weak - that's why he avoids questioning from the GLA.
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
Actually it was originally the other way round; Anglo-Saxons slaughtering the resident Celtic population, particularly the men.
Probably not as we are mostly genetically identical with our supposedly celtic ancestors rather than continental saxons. There is surprisingly little evidence of conquest by Anglo-Saxons at all. Read "Britain AD" by Francis Pryor full the full story, but this article covers a lot of the ground:
Thanks for that, but isn't much of the genetic material maternal?
50%...plus mitochondrial DNA.
But by genetic studies of the exclusively male Y chromosome, it is possible to identify the degree that male ancestry changed, and the answer is very little.
There are fairly clear records of viking invasions, but anglo-saxon vs Romano-British battle sites are vanishingly rare. Also "Anglo-Saxon" settlements are often contemporaneous with "Celtic" ones with no evidence of conflict.
Much of what we believe of our own history is much less certain than some would have it!
A lot depends upon whether one looks at the DNA of those at the top of the pile as against those at the bottom doesn't it!! I do, though agree, that modern science shows that the simplistic stories of Bede et al were just that; simplistic stories. And who can blame Bede; he could only record what he'd been told. At least he wrote it down!
I'm led to believe that some at least of the examined Anglo Saxon sites in East Anglia, such as Wast Stow, show little evidence of prior occupation.
I'm not a militant atheist like Dawkins, but I can see where he's coming from. I have two relatives whose lives have IMO been seriously damaged by religion - one gave up his job to go to "study" in the Edgar Cayce foundation in the US. When he finally saw through them, after giving them lots of money, he adopted a series of other beliefs - healing pyramids, for instance - and every time he stopped believing in something wacky, he blamed himself for not understanding what God was trying to tell him. Another relative has tormented herself all her life by the belief that God thinks her wicked (partly because her horrible parents persuaded the local parson to tell her she was heading for hell because she wasn't more obedient).
The ability of the harsher religions to persuade people that everything bad that happens is THEIR FAULT seems to me pretty nasty, and if Dawkins et al can persuade people to ignore that stuff, more power to his elbow.
Hear hear.
I know a guy whose descent down the religious rabbit hole was more akin to a mental breakdown than positive spiritual awakening. Those who underestimate the hold religion can have on the suggestible are seriously misguided.
I'm not a militant atheist like Dawkins, but I can see where he's coming from. I have two relatives whose lives have IMO been seriously damaged by religion - one gave up his job to go to "study" in the Edgar Cayce foundation in the US. When he finally saw through them, after giving them lots of money, he adopted a series of other beliefs - healing pyramids, for instance - and every time he stopped believing in something wacky, he blamed himself for not understanding what God was trying to tell him. Another relative has tormented herself all her life by the belief that God thinks her wicked (partly because her horrible parents persuaded the local parson to tell her she was heading for hell because she wasn't more obedient).
The ability of the harsher religions to persuade people that everything bad that happens is THEIR FAULT seems to me pretty nasty, and if Dawkins et al can persuade people to ignore that stuff, more power to his elbow.
It seems to me that they have been damaged by people. You don't need Religion to feel judged; you don't need it to be taken in by a bunch of American shysters either - America has been emptying pockets with expert skill since its inception. Who knows, perhaps in a decade or so a generation of impressionable former 'clear thinkers (tm)' will feel bitter and resentful that they gave so much of their energy and time to Dawkins and his hateful pseudo-scientific shite.
I'm not a militant atheist like Dawkins, but I can see where he's coming from. I have two relatives whose lives have IMO been seriously damaged by religion - one gave up his job to go to "study" in the Edgar Cayce foundation in the US. When he finally saw through them, after giving them lots of money, he adopted a series of other beliefs - healing pyramids, for instance - and every time he stopped believing in something wacky, he blamed himself for not understanding what God was trying to tell him. Another relative has tormented herself all her life by the belief that God thinks her wicked (partly because her horrible parents persuaded the local parson to tell her she was heading for hell because she wasn't more obedient).
The ability of the harsher religions to persuade people that everything bad that happens is THEIR FAULT seems to me pretty nasty, and if Dawkins et al can persuade people to ignore that stuff, more power to his elbow.
It seems to me that they have been damaged by people. You don't need Religion to feel judged; you don't need it to be taken in by a bunch of American shysters either - America has been emptying pockets with expert skill since its inception. Who knows, perhaps in a decade or so a generation of impressionable former 'clear thinkers (tm)' will feel bitter and resentful that they gave so much of their energy and time to Dawkins and his hateful pseudo-scientific shite.
Why so bitter?
He has a view you disagree with. Lots of people have views I disagree with, but I wouldn't describe even the truly deluded on this site as 'hateful'.
This is what you get when you put a fan of Batman v. Superman in charge of PB!
I think it is more an anti-Boris article, than a pro-Remain one.
Well maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised and get a Pro Brexit article - someday after 23rd June.
Mind you Boris did say he wasn't going to be that prominent in the campaign IIRC.
I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't like the tenor of the articles, write one and send it to Mike or TSE, or lump it. The articles reflect what is written, and people who step up to the plate and actually write pieces - Alistair Meeks, TSE and OGH are generally pro-EU. Deal with it, or write a pro-Brexit piece.
The Saxon, Viking and Norman conquests saw elites vanquished and replaced, but little changed further down the scale. The majority just adapted - or were forced to adapt - to their new rulers. We don't see it because almost everyone outside the elite (and the church) was illiterate.
England in 1066 was one of the most prosperous and peaceful countries in western Europe thanks to two generations of relative order. English silver was widely used as currency across northern and western Europe and there was already a strong trade in wool to Flanders.
The Normans destroyed all that through widespread land confiscations, punitive taxation and brutal repression. By the mid 12th Century, England was in a terrible state, ravaged by famine and plague and the on-off warfare of the Stephen/Matilda era.
However we view the Norman Conquest from the hindsight of nearly 1,000 years, it was a catastrophe for England and the English at the time.
Agree; didn't do a lot for South Wales, either. See also Alistairs post.
I'm not a militant atheist like Dawkins, but I can see where he's coming from. I have two relatives whose lives have IMO been seriously damaged by religion - one gave up his job to go to "study" in the Edgar Cayce foundation in the US. When he finally saw through them, after giving them lots of money, he adopted a series of other beliefs - healing pyramids, for instance - and every time he stopped believing in something wacky, he blamed himself for not understanding what God was trying to tell him. Another relative has tormented herself all her life by the belief that God thinks her wicked (partly because her horrible parents persuaded the local parson to tell her she was heading for hell because she wasn't more obedient).
The ability of the harsher religions to persuade people that everything bad that happens is THEIR FAULT seems to me pretty nasty, and if Dawkins et al can persuade people to ignore that stuff, more power to his elbow.
Hear hear.
I know a guy whose descent down the religious rabbit hole was more akin to a mental breakdown than positive spiritual awakening. Those who underestimate the hold religion can have on the suggestible are seriously misguided.
If a vicar says or does something bad, it's a misguided individual. If Richard Dawkins does it, it's the unacceptable face of militant atheism.
Scientists attempt to describe the universe. Fortunately, for us, it seems to be logical, so mathematics is useful.
IT didn't have to be. Ask a militant atheist a question such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The answer will be "Because there just is." If he has more knowledge, it may say "It is fine-tuned to be suitable for life because there an infinite number of possibilities" - or possibly 10 to the power of 500 if he knows some physics.
The guiding light will be that he KNOWS the mind of God and what options God had, and how God would have done this, but he didn't because ...
To say ... "the fact, is we don't know for sure." is honest. The Atheist does know for sure - he can prove a negative - a fact no real scientist would ever say. I have more respect for those who say something along the lines of "On the balance of probabilities, I prefer to think there probably isn't." That's a reasonable answer, at least.
The thing is - it is easy to ask questions for which there are no answers. It is a fallacy to assume that if there is a question then there is an answer. It does not mean that there is a 'God' who can answer the question.
I'm not a militant atheist like Dawkins, but I can see where he's coming from. I have two relatives whose lives have IMO been seriously damaged by religion - one gave up his job to go to "study" in the Edgar Cayce foundation in the US. When he finally saw through them, after giving them lots of money, he adopted a series of other beliefs - healing pyramids, for instance - and every time he stopped believing in something wacky, he blamed himself for not understanding what God was trying to tell him. Another relative has tormented herself all her life by the belief that God thinks her wicked (partly because her horrible parents persuaded the local parson to tell her she was heading for hell because she wasn't more obedient).
The ability of the harsher religions to persuade people that everything bad that happens is THEIR FAULT seems to me pretty nasty, and if Dawkins et al can persuade people to ignore that stuff, more power to his elbow.
It seems to me that they have been damaged by people. You don't need Religion to feel judged; you don't need it to be taken in by a bunch of American shysters either - America has been emptying pockets with expert skill since its inception. Who knows, perhaps in a decade or so a generation of impressionable former 'clear thinkers (tm)' will feel bitter and resentful that they gave so much of their energy and time to Dawkins and his hateful pseudo-scientific shite.
Why so bitter?
He has a view you disagree with. Lots of people have views I disagree with, but I wouldn't describe even the truly deluded on this site as 'hateful'.
The word hateful is ambiguous so I could have used a better adjective. I used it as in 'hate filled'. The most obvious thing to me when watching, listening, or reading, Dawkins and his cohorts, is the bile-filled nature of their attacks. I am not referring to atheism being 'hateful' as in the Nazi doctrine being 'hateful' (Godwin alert).
Scientists attempt to describe the universe. Fortunately, for us, it seems to be logical, so mathematics is useful.
IT didn't have to be. Ask a militant atheist a question such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The answer will be "Because there just is." If he has more knowledge, it may say "It is fine-tuned to be suitable for life because there an infinite number of possibilities" - or possibly 10 to the power of 500 if he knows some physics.
The guiding light will be that he KNOWS the mind of God and what options God had, and how God would have done this, but he didn't because ...
To say ... "the fact, is we don't know for sure." is honest. The Atheist does know for sure - he can prove a negative - a fact no real scientist would ever say. I have more respect for those who say something along the lines of "On the balance of probabilities, I prefer to think there probably isn't." That's a reasonable answer, at least.
The thing is - it is easy to ask questions for which there are no answers. It is a fallacy to assume that if there is a question then there is an answer. It does not mean that there is a 'God' who can answer the question.
This is what you get when you put a fan of Batman v. Superman in charge of PB!
I've said I found Batman v Superman a real disappointment.
6 out of 10.
Sounds about right. Like Man of Steel it's not as bad as many critics say, but it isn't very good either (MoS was much better).
I'm still not sure if Jesse Eisenberg's performance as Lex Luthor was brilliant or camper than a row of pink tents.
The latter.
Honestly, performances were fine, and in fact I really liked the idea of the heroes being in opposition due to people blaming Superman for the conclusion of the last movie (that's not a spoiler, given the title of this one), as one thing that annoyed me about the reaction to the last one was people complaining about the destruction, which I felt would only be a problem if there were no consequences, which given how central it was to the plot of this movie, was clearly not the case and seemed part of the plan even then.
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
I'm in a very similar situation. My department is about 50% British, and I'm the only definite Leaver; the other retired last year. We have one Scandi who's for Leave but they won't have a vote! Most of the people outside the company I meet through work are surprised (if not shocked) that I'm for Leave; they will be voting Remain.
I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't like the tenor of the articles, write one and send it to Mike or TSE, or lump it. The articles reflect what is written, and people who step up to the plate and actually write pieces - Alistair Meeks, TSE and OGH are generally pro-EU. Deal with it, or write a pro-Brexit piece.
[Sunil and TSE confront each other, after the former has learnt that the latter has turned to the Daft Side]
Sunil: You have allowed this Europhile Chancellor to twist your mind, until now, until now you've become the very thing you swore to destroy.
TSE: Don't lecture me, Sunil! I see through the lies of the LEAVE campaign. I do not fear the European Union as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire!
Sunil: Your new Empire?
TSE: Don't make me MODERATE you.
Sunil: TSE, my allegiance is to the Republic Monarchy, to democracy!
TSE: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy.
Sunil:[realizing that TSE is consumed by evil and there's no reasoning with him anymore] Only a Europhile deals in absolutes. [draws his lightsaber] I will do what I must!
TSE: You will try! [draws his own lightsaber and confronts Sunil!]
[later during a pause in the battle]
Sunil: I have failed you, TSE. I have failed you.
TSE: I should have known the LEAVERS were plotting to take over. Chancellor Osborne has showed me the true ways of the Force.
Sunil: TSE, Chancellor Osborne is evil! The Europhiles are evil. The Daft Side of the Force is an evil presence.
TSE: From my point of view, it is the LEAVERS who are evil.
Sunil: Well, then you really are lost!
TSE:[raises his lightsaber] This is the end for you... my former master.
[the battle resumes, but even later on, Sunil manages to reach a vantage point overlooking TSE]
Sunil: It's over TSE, I have the high ground!
TSE: You MISUNDERESTIMATE my power!
Sunil: Don't try it!
[TSE leaps at Sunil, but the latter anticipates his move and promptly lightsabers TSE's rather fetching Red Shoes of Power off, leaving him writhing in pain on the ground, crippled and temporarily bereft of his Force abilities!]
Sunil: You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the Europhiles, not join them! You were to bring balance to PoliticalBetting.com, not leave it in Daftness!
TSE:[shouts] I HATE you!
Sunil: You were my brother, TSE. I loved you.
[Sunil, unable to bring himself to finish off poor TSE, walks away from the scene, disconsolate...
I find the notion that 'militant/new' atheists are trying to undermine morality hilarious as a concept.
The concept of morality. Perhaps you'd like to explain the basis of morality in a Godless world. Dawkins himself has admitted it gives him severe difficulties, but I'm sure you'll manage with aplomb.
This is what you get when you put a fan of Batman v. Superman in charge of PB!
I've said I found Batman v Superman a real disappointment.
6 out of 10. 1 of those points is purely for Gal Godot's Wonder Woman.
Immediately after watching Batman vs Superman I gave it exactly the same rating.
It would have been 6.5/10 if they cut a lot of the unnecessary crap. I found myself drifting off at one point although that was partly down to consuming a large amount of beer beforehand.
After watching the movie and reading some of the major plot holes on the internet I would give it a far lower rating. The acting, special effects, etc., were fine, the plot is incredibly weak.
This is what you get when you put a fan of Batman v. Superman in charge of PB!
I've said I found Batman v Superman a real disappointment.
6 out of 10. 1 of those points is purely for Gal Godot's Wonder Woman.
Immediately after watching Batman vs Superman I gave it exactly the same rating.
It would have been 6.5/10 if they cut a lot of the unnecessary crap. I found myself drifting off at one point although that was partly down to consuming a large amount of beer beforehand.
After watching the movie and reading some of the major plot holes on the internet I would give it a far lower rating. The acting, special effects, etc., were fine, the plot is incredibly weak.
Hear hear. I know a guy whose descent down the religious rabbit hole was more akin to a mental breakdown than positive spiritual awakening. Those who underestimate the hold religion can have on the suggestible are seriously misguided.
Whilst acknowledging the problems religion can cause, I must also point out the good. As children we were thoroughly religioned and although I settled into mild agnosticism as I grew, my siblings traversed different paths, One of them still goes to church more often than God and the church repays her fidelity by assisting her thru her various situations (she has long-term problems), enabling her to lead a relatively normal life and to face the future with more hope than she would otherwise possess. They are not all bad guys nor idiots, but simply people trying to cope with the fact that life can be very hard.
I find the notion that 'militant/new' atheists are trying to undermine morality hilarious as a concept.
The concept of morality. Perhaps you'd like to explain the basis of morality in a Godless world. Dawkins himself has admitted it gives him severe difficulties, but I'm sure you'll manage with aplomb.
Why does morality need a foundation?
People don't cease to be moral actors in the absence of an imaginary authority.
This is what you get when you put a fan of Batman v. Superman in charge of PB!
I've said I found Batman v Superman a real disappointment.
6 out of 10. 1 of those points is purely for Gal Godot's Wonder Woman.
Immediately after watching Batman vs Superman I gave it exactly the same rating.
It would have been 6.5/10 if they cut a lot of the unnecessary crap. I found myself drifting off at one point although that was partly down to consuming a large amount of beer beforehand.
After watching the movie and reading some of the major plot holes on the internet I would give it a far lower rating. The acting, special effects, etc., were fine, the plot is incredibly weak.
The plot holes. Oh Lord, where to begin.
X throws [spoiler hidden] away then 10 mins later, without anyone telling them, or them realising why it might be needed, decides to go get it back.
DC should have followed Marvel's lead of how to put a cinematic universe together.
Also the way this comic worked was this was long after the JLA had been formed and Batman and Superman fell out.
The Saxon, Viking and Norman conquests saw elites vanquished and replaced, but little changed further down the scale. The majority just adapted - or were forced to adapt - to their new rulers. We don't see it because almost everyone outside the elite (and the church) was illiterate.
England in 1066 was one of the most prosperous and peaceful countries in western Europe thanks to two generations of relative order. English silver was widely used as currency across northern and western Europe and there was already a strong trade in wool to Flanders.
The Normans destroyed all that through widespread land confiscations, punitive taxation and brutal repression. By the mid 12th Century, England was in a terrible state, ravaged by famine and plague and the on-off warfare of the Stephen/Matilda era.
However we view the Norman Conquest from the hindsight of nearly 1,000 years, it was a catastrophe for England and the English at the time.
Yep, this is spot on. It's caught very well in The Last English King by Julian Rathbine. A great story well worth a read.
This is what you get when you put a fan of Batman v. Superman in charge of PB!
Why don't you or one of the (apparently) huge number of LEAVE supporters on this forum contribute an article ?
Here's a thought - find out the price for 50-55% LEAVE and explain why we should all back it.
Isam has AFAIK tried to contribute numerous pieces.
Me too, no reply
Yes, nobody ever emails back when you offer. Even a cheerful "bugger off" would have been an acknowledgement. Gave up ages ago.
Below the line has plenty of open space to comment. Indeed the header often sets up the response.
This one is spot on. BoJo has been ineffective, and doesn't look to have the support in Parliament to make the final two. He is hurt partly by his clowning, no one wants a bufoon as PM, even one who may be excellent company at dinner. The main reason though is that he seems to believe in nothing beyond himself. He is more inconsistent even than SeanT. What direction would the party go with him in charge? Who knows? Even Boris himself doesn't know!
I find the notion that 'militant/new' atheists are trying to undermine morality hilarious as a concept.
The concept of morality. Perhaps you'd like to explain the basis of morality in a Godless world. Dawkins himself has admitted it gives him severe difficulties, but I'm sure you'll manage with aplomb.
Do you have any quotes from Dawkins on his 'severe difficulties' as i dont recall him stating any. Anyway - it's pretty easy, sociologist/psycologists have identified a base 'universal' morality the crosses all cultures and creeds.
Through a series of questions that look to be describing utilitarian situations: the death of one to avoid the death of multiple others, a minor change in the scenario setup universally produces a change in response across all creeds, faiths, nationalities from Italian Roman Catholics to English athiest to remote South American tribes.
Then from that base level their is an evolving cultural level that has nothing to do with God or gods, unless God changed his mind at some point on the morality of slave ownership or homosexual intercourse.
Hear hear. I know a guy whose descent down the religious rabbit hole was more akin to a mental breakdown than positive spiritual awakening. Those who underestimate the hold religion can have on the suggestible are seriously misguided.
Whilst acknowledging the problems religion can cause, I must also point out the good. As children we were thoroughly religioned and although I settled into mild agnosticism as I grew, my siblings traversed different paths, One of them still goes to church more often than God and the church repays her fidelity by assisting her thru her various situations (she has long-term problems), enabling her to lead a relatively normal life and to face the future with more hope than she would otherwise possess. They are not all bad guys nor idiots, but simply people trying to cope with the fact that life can be very hard.
I agree and disagree.
An ex-colleague of mine and his wife lost their baby child in an horrific accident, and their church helped them through a hideously awful time. The kindness and compassion of strangers, connected only through God, was a wonder. (*)
On the other hand, I have known several people who suffered long-term harm through religion, and in one case it eventually led him to take his own life. Sick, evil people using religion to hide, and other religious people hiding their crimes, have hurt so many people.
(*) It should be said that the kindness and compassion of strangers can be seen everywhere, and not just through religion. When I was taken ill our neighbours helped tremendously, despite being warned, and not knowing whether or not it was the infectious form of meningitis.
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
Interesting. But you're in London. All the remainers are in London. Go outside. Whoops. Disappeared.
I do wonder if the pollsters are calling this completely wrong and the fact is LEAVE Is 60/40 ahead on those actually arsed to vote.
Take my mum and her husband (my stepfather). One mild Tory one mild labourite. Both passionate LEAVERS and will definitely vote. Age 79, and 82, respectively.
Despite thinking the ref will be close with Brexit possible, those folk I expected to be clear Leavers I am finding to be weak Remainers. It's primarily the risk thing.
This site has declined, drastically, in the light of euroref. Sorry. Know it's your dad and all, but it no longer remotely reflects public opinion. It doesn't event attempt to do so. This is bad for bettors.
Fail.
Ps. Lol. This comment was aimed at rcs but it might as well be in response to this drivelling gibberish from the priorly sensible TSE
Why don't you try and contribute an article ? You've posted on here as long as I have (if not longer) and I'm told you write a bit.
I'm sure you could pen something worth reading and possibly even with a betting angle as I suggested earlier - something about why 50-55% LEAVE is a good bet.
As to "balance" - I think the number of posts, if not the number of posters, shows a clear majority for LEAVE. As for the threads themselves, you're right, we need more pro-LEAVE pieces.
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
Interesting. But you're in London. All the remainers are in London. Go outside. Whoops. Disappeared.
I do wonder if the pollsters are calling this completely wrong and the fact is LEAVE Is 60/40 ahead on those actually arsed to vote.
Take my mum and her husband (my stepfather). One mild Tory one mild labourite. Both passionate LEAVERS and will definitely vote. Age 79, and 82, respectively.
The Saxon, Viking and Norman conquests saw elites vanquished and replaced, but little changed further down the scale. The majority just adapted - or were forced to adapt - to their new rulers. We don't see it because almost everyone outside the elite (and the church) was illiterate.
England in 1066 was one of the most prosperous and peaceful countries in western Europe thanks to two generations of relative order. English silver was widely used as currency across northern and western Europe and there was already a strong trade in wool to Flanders.
The Normans destroyed all that through widespread land confiscations, punitive taxation and brutal repression. By the mid 12th Century, England was in a terrible state, ravaged by famine and plague and the on-off warfare of the Stephen/Matilda era.
However we view the Norman Conquest from the hindsight of nearly 1,000 years, it was a catastrophe for England and the English at the time.
Yep, this is spot on. It's caught very well in The Last English King by Julian Rathbine. A great story well worth a read.
"This book challenges some of our longest held assumptions about the differences between Anglo-Saxons and Celts – perceived differences that have informed our collective sense of identity. Orthodox history has long taught that the Romans found a uniformly Celtic population throughout the British Isles, but that the peoples of the English heartland fell victim to genocide by the Anglo-Saxon hordes during the fifth and sixth centuries.
"Now Stephen Oppenheimer’s groundbreaking genetic research has revealed that the ‘Anglo-Saxon invasion’ contributed only a tiny fraction to the English gene pool. In fact, three quarters of English people can trace an unbroken line of genetic descent through their parental genes from settlers arriving long before the introduction of farming.
"Synthesizing the genetic evidence with linguistics, archaeology and the historical record, Oppenheimer shows how long-term Scandinavian trade and immigration contributed the remaining quarter – mostly before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. These migrations may have introduced the earliest forms of English."
I'm not a militant atheist like Dawkins, but I can see where he's coming from. I have two relatives whose lives have IMO been seriously damaged by religion - one gave up his job to go to "study" in the Edgar Cayce foundation in the US. When he finally saw through them, after giving them lots of money, he adopted a series of other beliefs - healing pyramids, for instance - and every time he stopped believing in something wacky, he blamed himself for not understanding what God was trying to tell him. Another relative has tormented herself all her life by the belief that God thinks her wicked (partly because her horrible parents persuaded the local parson to tell her she was heading for hell because she wasn't more obedient).
The ability of the harsher religions to persuade people that everything bad that happens is THEIR FAULT seems to me pretty nasty, and if Dawkins et al can persuade people to ignore that stuff, more power to his elbow.
It seems to me that they have been damaged by people. You don't need Religion to feel judged; you don't need it to be taken in by a bunch of American shysters either - America has been emptying pockets with expert skill since its inception. Who knows, perhaps in a decade or so a generation of impressionable former 'clear thinkers (tm)' will feel bitter and resentful that they gave so much of their energy and time to Dawkins and his hateful pseudo-scientific shite.
Quite. Nothing to do with religion, per se. Weak, lost people are always keen to follow something or someone, be it fortune-telling, Charles Manson, pop idols, 'Itler, political correctness, or whatever the herd happens to view as flavour of the month. It doesn't much matter, as long as it might give some meaning and sense of belonging to a pointless existence.
Some (but not all) religions are thus comparatively benign repositories for the collective human angst, viewed against the alternatives...
The Saxon, Viking and Norman conquests saw elites vanquished and replaced, but little changed further down the scale. The majority just adapted - or were forced to adapt - to their new rulers. We don't see it because almost everyone outside the elite (and the church) was illiterate.
England in 1066 was one of the most prosperous and peaceful countries in western Europe thanks to two generations of relative order. English silver was widely used as currency across northern and western Europe and there was already a strong trade in wool to Flanders.
The Normans destroyed all that through widespread land confiscations, punitive taxation and brutal repression. By the mid 12th Century, England was in a terrible state, ravaged by famine and plague and the on-off warfare of the Stephen/Matilda era.
However we view the Norman Conquest from the hindsight of nearly 1,000 years, it was a catastrophe for England and the English at the time.
Yep, this is spot on. It's caught very well in The Last English King by Julian Rathbine. A great story well worth a read.
"This book challenges some of our longest held assumptions about the differences between Anglo-Saxons and Celts – perceived differences that have informed our collective sense of identity. Orthodox history has long taught that the Romans found a uniformly Celtic population throughout the British Isles, but that the peoples of the English heartland fell victim to genocide by the Anglo-Saxon hordes during the fifth and sixth centuries.
"Now Stephen Oppenheimer’s groundbreaking genetic research has revealed that the ‘Anglo-Saxon invasion’ contributed only a tiny fraction to the English gene pool. In fact, three quarters of English people can trace an unbroken line of genetic descent through their parental genes from settlers arriving long before the introduction of farming.
"Synthesizing the genetic evidence with linguistics, archaeology and the historical record, Oppenheimer shows how long-term Scandinavian trade and immigration contributed the remaining quarter – mostly before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. These migrations may have introduced the earliest forms of English."
Sorry Sunil but Oppenheimer's lingusitic theories are complete rubbish
This one is spot on. BoJo has been ineffective, and doesn't look to have the support in Parliament to make the final two. He is hurt partly by his clowning, no one wants a bufoon as PM, even one who may be excellent company at dinner. The main reason though is that he seems to believe in nothing beyond himself. He is more inconsistent even than SeanT. What direction would the party go with him in charge? Who knows? Even Boris himself doesn't know!
Just like Trump, and he's not getting anywhere...oh.
On religion, I absolutely agree that it can have a reinforcing effect for people with good intenitons and provide solace and support for many people in difficulty. I didn't mean to generalise.
Marx, while in the Dawkins camp, was not unsympathetic, and uncharacteristically gentle about it:
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
Vote Leave Apologises Over Wrong Names On List The campaign group wrongly included the names of two leading British businessmen among 250 signatories to an anti-EU letter
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
Interesting. But you're in London. All the remainers are in London. Go outside. Whoops. Disappeared.
I do wonder if the pollsters are calling this completely wrong and the fact is LEAVE Is 60/40 ahead on those actually arsed to vote.
Take my mum and her husband (my stepfather). One mild Tory one mild labourite. Both passionate LEAVERS and will definitely vote. Age 79, and 82, respectively.
The oldsters might eject us.
Plenty of Remainers in the midlands too.
Me and you.
Some others as well. People keep quiet when faced by frothy-mouthed tirades. It was the same in the Indyref.
Vote Leave Apologises Over Wrong Names On List The campaign group wrongly included the names of two leading British businessmen among 250 signatories to an anti-EU letter
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
Actually it was originally the other way round; Anglo-Saxons slaughtering the resident Celtic population, particularly the men.
Probably not as we are mostly genetically identical with our supposedly celtic ancestors rather than continental saxons. There is surprisingly little evidence of conquest by Anglo-Saxons at all. Read "Britain AD" by Francis Pryor full the full story, but this article covers a lot of the ground:
I think you go a bit far in saying there is surprisingly little evidence of an invasion. It would be more accurate to say there is at best limited evidence for a mass migration.
However you cut it, it is fairly clear that there were major invasions of the British Isles by the Saxons, then the Vikings, then the Normans. What has been argued (and that article puts forward) is that this only changed the elites, much as the Roman invasion caused not an ethnic cleansing but a transfer of power and an imposition of a foreign army and government.
I am not sure I would go as far as Pryor on language, for instance, speaking as somebody who knows Welsh and English as well as some Irish. There is to my mind a clear difference between them that can't easily be explained without a fairly dramatic foreign importation from somewhere. But, as with French, that may have been imposed from above rather than raised from below.
It is also worth noting that in the last fifty years historians have become less enamoured of mass migration theories for antiquity even as mass migration has taken off around them like never before. The ancient Celtic migrations were first to go - these just follow the set pattern.
Sorry to interrupt, but finding this is an interesting conversation. I do know that they were slightly later (from 1096) than the period you are talking about, but, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the mass migrations caused by the crusades and the religious pilgrimages?
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
Interesting. But you're in London. All the remainers are in London. Go outside. Whoops. Disappeared.
I do wonder if the pollsters are calling this completely wrong and the fact is LEAVE Is 60/40 ahead on those actually arsed to vote.
Take my mum and her husband (my stepfather). One mild Tory one mild labourite. Both passionate LEAVERS and will definitely vote. Age 79, and 82, respectively.
The oldsters might eject us.
Plenty of Remainers in the midlands too.
Me and you.
Some others as well. People keep quiet when faced by frothy-mouthed tirades. It was the same in the Indyref.
The Saxon, Viking and Norman conquests saw elites vanquished and replaced, but little changed further down the scale. The majority just adapted - or were forced to adapt - to their new rulers. We don't see it because almost everyone outside the elite (and the church) was illiterate.
England in 1066 was one of the most prosperous and peaceful countries in western Europe thanks to two generations of relative order. English silver was widely used as currency across northern and western Europe and there was already a strong trade in wool to Flanders.
The Normans destroyed all that through widespread land confiscations, punitive taxation and brutal repression. By the mid 12th Century, England was in a terrible state, ravaged by famine and plague and the on-off warfare of the Stephen/Matilda era.
However we view the Norman Conquest from the hindsight of nearly 1,000 years, it was a catastrophe for England and the English at the time.
Yep, this is spot on. It's caught very well in The Last English King by Julian Rathbine. A great story well worth a read.
"This book challenges some of our longest held assumptions about the differences between Anglo-Saxons and Celts – perceived differences that have informed our collective sense of identity. Orthodox history has long taught that the Romans found a uniformly Celtic population throughout the British Isles, but that the peoples of the English heartland fell victim to genocide by the Anglo-Saxon hordes during the fifth and sixth centuries.
"Now Stephen Oppenheimer’s groundbreaking genetic research has revealed that the ‘Anglo-Saxon invasion’ contributed only a tiny fraction to the English gene pool. In fact, three quarters of English people can trace an unbroken line of genetic descent through their parental genes from settlers arriving long before the introduction of farming.
"Synthesizing the genetic evidence with linguistics, archaeology and the historical record, Oppenheimer shows how long-term Scandinavian trade and immigration contributed the remaining quarter – mostly before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. These migrations may have introduced the earliest forms of English."
Sorry Sunil but Oppenheimer's lingusitic theories are complete rubbish
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
Interesting. But you're in London. All the remainers are in London. Go outside. Whoops. Disappeared.
I do wonder if the pollsters are calling this completely wrong and the fact is LEAVE Is 60/40 ahead on those actually arsed to vote.
Take my mum and her husband (my stepfather). One mild Tory one mild labourite. Both passionate LEAVERS and will definitely vote. Age 79, and 82, respectively.
The oldsters might eject us.
Plenty of Remainers in the midlands too.
Me and you.
Some others as well. People keep quiet when faced by frothy-mouthed tirades. It was the same in the Indyref.
A month ago I did not believe I was going to bother with this referendum. I have never been fond of the EU as an institution and the whole exercise seemed like a private argument among people on the right. Then I started to think about it and concluded: 1. Our business definitely benefits from full, unfettered access to the single market and I don't see all this red tape that is supposed to hold us back. 2. Being based in an EU member state has not prevented us from doing business and growing in either the US or Asia. 3. Personally, I like the idea of the four freedoms and would not want to put them at risk. 4. The fact that we are having this referendum in the first place says to me the British people remain sovereign. We have the right to decide. We are being asked to give up stuff with absolutely no guarantees that we will end up with anything better or even similar. I just don't see the point.
Hear hear. I know a guy whose descent down the religious rabbit hole was more akin to a mental breakdown than positive spiritual awakening. Those who underestimate the hold religion can have on the suggestible are seriously misguided.
Whilst acknowledging the problems religion can cause, I must also point out the good. As children we were thoroughly religioned and although I settled into mild agnosticism as I grew, my siblings traversed different paths, One of them still goes to church more often than God and the church repays her fidelity by assisting her thru her various situations (she has long-term problems), enabling her to lead a relatively normal life and to face the future with more hope than she would otherwise possess. They are not all bad guys nor idiots, but simply people trying to cope with the fact that life can be very hard.
I agree and disagree.
An ex-colleague of mine and his wife lost their baby child in an horrific accident, and their church helped them through a hideously awful time. The kindness and compassion of strangers, connected only through God, was a wonder. (*)
On the other hand, I have known several people who suffered long-term harm through religion, and in one case it eventually led him to take his own life. Sick, evil people using religion to hide, and other religious people hiding their crimes, have hurt so many people.
(*) It should be said that the kindness and compassion of strangers can be seen everywhere, and not just through religion. When I was taken ill our neighbours helped tremendously, despite being warned, and not knowing whether or not it was the infectious form of meningitis.
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
Interesting. But you're in London. All the remainers are in London. Go outside. Whoops. Disappeared.
I do wonder if the pollsters are calling this completely wrong and the fact is LEAVE Is 60/40 ahead on those actually arsed to vote.
Take my mum and her husband (my stepfather). One mild Tory one mild labourite. Both passionate LEAVERS and will definitely vote. Age 79, and 82, respectively.
The oldsters might eject us.
Plenty of Remainers in the midlands too.
Fair enough. And I agree that the passion of the Leavers might be silencing the shy REMAINIANS.
It's what makes this vote so fucking hard to call. Anecdotally I'd say the Leavers could easily win, and maybe even win big. Yet the polls still point to a substantial REMAIN win, if you factor in the DKs going In at the last moment, the bias to status quo, etc
What we can say for sure is that this is probably and simultaneously the most unpredictable AND the most important Vote in the history of recent British Democracy. And for that Cameron should be thanked. And three cheers for the democratic process.
A re-run of GE2015 in terms of unpredictability and "herding" of the polls?
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
Interesting. But you're in London. All the remainers are in London. Go outside. Whoops. Disappeared.
Take my mum and her husband (my stepfather). One mild Tory one mild labourite. Both passionate LEAVERS and will definitely vote. Age 79, and 82, respectively.
The oldsters might eject us.
Plenty of Remainers in the midlands too.
Fair enough. And I agree that the passion of the Leavers might be silencing the shy REMAINIANS.
It's what makes this vote so fucking hard to call. Anecdotally I'd say the Leavers could easily win, and maybe even win big. Yet the polls still point to a substantial REMAIN win, if you factor in the DKs going In at the last moment, the bias to status quo, etc
What we can say for sure is that this is probably and simultaneously the most unpredictable AND the most important Vote in the history of recent British Democracy. And for that Cameron should be thanked. And three cheers for the democratic process.
Voting Leave is a great opportunity to say Piss Off to the big, fat comfortable consensus that has singularly failed to tackle the big problems that many voters face day to day, and which has shown itself to be only interested in looking after those who are already well placed to look after themselves. It's the same reason that Scottish independence was so compelling to so many. The SNP had/has Wrstminster; Leave has Brussels. It makes complete sense to me.
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
Interesting. But you're in London. All the remainers are in London. Go outside. Whoops. Disappeared.
I do wonder if the pollsters are calling this completely wrong and the fact is LEAVE Is 60/40 ahead on those actually arsed to vote.
Take my mum and her husband (my stepfather). One mild Tory one mild labourite. Both passionate LEAVERS and will definitely vote. Age 79, and 82, respectively.
The oldsters might eject us.
Plenty of Remainers in the midlands too.
Me and you.
Some others as well. People keep quiet when faced by frothy-mouthed tirades. It was the same in the Indyref.
People also keep quiet when they are portrayed as reckless trouble makers, xenophobes and wreckers.
Sorry Sunil but Oppenheimer's lingusitic theories are complete rubbish
How so?
Well I could go give you chapter and verse but this perhaps isn't the right place. Suffice to say you will not find any experts on Old English who take them remotely seriously. I'm less well informed on the genetics but have read some fairly damning stuff on that too, by people who are (and note Oppenheimer is not a geneticist, really, either).
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colle so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
Interesting. But you're in London. All the remainers are in London. Go outside. Whoops. Disassionate LEAVERS and will definitely vote. Age 79, and 82, respectively.
The oldsters might eject us.
Plenty of Remainers in the midlands too.
Fair enough. And I agree that the passion of the Leavers might be silencing the shy REMAINIANS. . And for that Cameron should be thanked. And three cheers for the democratic process.
Voting Leave is a great opportunity to say Piss Off to the big, fat comfortable consensus that has singularly failed to tackle the big problems that many voters face day to day, and which has shown itself to be only interested in looking after those who are already well placed to look after themselves. It's the same reason that Scottish independence was so compelling to so many. The SNP had/has Wrstminster; Leave has Brussels. It makes complete sense to me.
Yet most people, when asked, confess themselves quite content with life as it is. Most humans are risk averse, perhaps very wisely. Rich Western Europeans, some of the most fortunate people on earth, are especially risk averse.
It's for this reason that, unlike you, I am still entirely convinced REMAIN will win. It's not quite Project Fear that will win, it's project Oo-er. The scariness of the leap.
What does it mean? I truly dunno. I keep hearing about REMAINIANS everywhere, but when I ask people, I keep unearthing LEAVERS.
BTW everyone around the table expected REMAIN to win, even though they were all voting LEAVE.
In all seriousness, that's mostly my experience. However, I suspect most of my civil service work colleagues are for Remain.
Where are the REMAINIANS? I haven't met one yet, or at least not one prepared to argue her case, let alone argue it with passion and eloquence.
REMAIN are relying on a vast number of scared but apathetic people turning out on the day. The phone polls may point to a large pool of such voters. But I seriously begin to wonder if these people will show up. No wonder the pro-Europeans are panicking.
I am the only OUTer in my office. One of my female colleagues is spending the weekend, with her family, leaflettin for REMAIN. There are 28 people where I work, so it's currently 27-1. (That being said, one of the REMAINers actually has a Swiss passport and therefore won't be able to vote. So, it's really 26-1.) In Hampstead, there are a smattering of "Britain Stronger in Europe" posters around, and no LEAVE posters.
Interesting. But you're in London. All the remainers are in London. Go outside. Whoops. Disappeared.
I do wonder if the pollsters are calling this completely wrong and the fact is LEAVE Is 60/40 ahead on those actually arsed to vote.
Take my mum and her husband (my stepfather). One mild Tory one mild labourite. Both passionate LEAVERS and will definitely vote. Age 79, and 82, respectively.
The oldsters might eject us.
Plenty of Remainers in the midlands too.
Me and you.
Some others as well. People keep quiet when faced by frothy-mouthed tirades. It was the same in the Indyref.
People also keep quiet when they are portrayed as reckless trouble makers, xenophobes and wreckers.
Indeed. When you have people at work loudly voicing their opinion about those who want to leave the EU it is easier to just stay quiet. Much like the general election, easier to stay quiet than admit to voting Tory or UKIP. Turns out the general election wasn't even close and the Tories got a majority.
A number of people in my circle are worried about a leave vote because they think it will mean that people will start arguing for repatriation.
They are Brits, though with different heritage within the last couple of generations. They are very conscious of their different ethnicity to the 'ethnic English', in spite of being born in England.
If remain does win,I say open borders to everyone,it's only fair that the rest of the country have the benefit of poor unskilled immigration to the area's you live.
Just yesterday I walked past a Eastern European drunk p!$$ing in the bushes on the main road in broad daylight.
Don't know how these drunks are surviving over here,plenty on the local bench.
Comments
I met one who thought we should remain in, as it would mean we could stand together against Russia.
I then explain about NATO...
http://www.romanarmy.net/invasion.shtml
I am a Remainer - not because I am a passionate EUophile, but because I don't get why I should potentially give up freedoms I currently have for a completely unknown and unknowable prospectus. That said, I am pretty sure I'm in the minority.
However you cut it, it is fairly clear that there were major invasions of the British Isles by the Saxons, then the Vikings, then the Normans. What has been argued (and that article puts forward) is that this only changed the elites, much as the Roman invasion caused not an ethnic cleansing but a transfer of power and an imposition of a foreign army and government.
I am not sure I would go as far as Pryor on language, for instance, speaking as somebody who knows Welsh and English as well as some Irish. There is to my mind a clear difference between them that can't easily be explained without a fairly dramatic foreign importation from somewhere. But, as with French, that may have been imposed from above rather than raised from below.
It is also worth noting that in the last fifty years historians have become less enamoured of mass migration theories for antiquity even as mass migration has taken off around them like never before. The ancient Celtic migrations were first to go - these just follow the set pattern.
I should potentially give up freedoms I currently have for a completely unknown and unknowable prospectus.
If it is unknown, how do you know it is unworkable? How do you know you re giving up freedoms? How do you know you are not gaining freedoms?
Has anyone considered placing a wager on Paddy Power's HOW BIG IS DONALD TRUMP'S MANHOOD (when quote "standing to attention") market ?
My natural bashfulness prevents me from going into details, but suffice it to say that a couple of the possible options appear somewhat unlikely.
All bets will be declared void if, and again I quote, "It is not revealed by the end of 2016."
But by genetic studies of the exclusively male Y chromosome, it is possible to identify the degree that male ancestry changed, and the answer is very little.
There are fairly clear records of viking invasions, but anglo-saxon vs Romano-British battle sites are vanishingly rare. Also "Anglo-Saxon" settlements are often contemporaneous with "Celtic" ones with no evidence of conflict.
Much of what we believe of our own history is much less certain than some would have it!
This is what you get when you put a fan of Batman v. Superman in charge of PB!
The ability of the harsher religions to persuade people that everything bad that happens is THEIR FAULT seems to me pretty nasty, and if Dawkins et al can persuade people to ignore that stuff, more power to his elbow.
The Normans destroyed all that through widespread land confiscations, punitive taxation and brutal repression. By the mid 12th Century, England was in a terrible state, ravaged by famine and plague and the on-off warfare of the Stephen/Matilda era.
However we view the Norman Conquest from the hindsight of nearly 1,000 years, it was a catastrophe for England and the English at the time.
6 out of 10. 1 of those points is purely for Gal Godot's Wonder Woman.
I'm no Conservative so I don't have a dog in the "who follows Dave ?" race and nor am I a fan of Boris whose tenure as London Mayor has been a success in terms of the centralisation of power within the Mayor's own office (taking over the Police and TfL and effectively re-nationalising the suburban train services) and the self-aggrandisement of Boris (aided by the Evening Standard which has been simperingly loyal throughout the last eight years).
My observation is Boris will try to say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear. That's the mark of the populist, unlike Nicky Morgan, who at least tried to argue her case in the lion's den.
The problem is Boris thinks he can outsmart or outcharm any and every audience but Commons Select Committees are impervious in a way the public aren't. His inconsistencies and inabilities are therefore laid bare and he is exposed as the waste of space he really is.
My fear is the public will take to his third-rate clown act and stop thinking or asking questions. Rather like Trump, Boris doesn't do defensive and doesn't like to be seen to be weak - that's why he avoids questioning from the GLA.
I'm led to believe that some at least of the examined Anglo Saxon sites in East Anglia, such as Wast Stow, show little evidence of prior occupation.
I know a guy whose descent down the religious rabbit hole was more akin to a mental breakdown than positive spiritual awakening. Those who underestimate the hold religion can have on the suggestible are seriously misguided.
Here's a thought - find out the price for 50-55% LEAVE and explain why we should all back it.
Mind you Boris did say he wasn't going to be that prominent in the campaign IIRC.
He has a view you disagree with. Lots of people have views I disagree with, but I wouldn't describe even the truly deluded on this site as 'hateful'.
The introduction of the rest of the JLA was about as subtle as one my pop music references.
I'm still not sure if Jesse Eisenberg's performance as Lex Luthor was brilliant or camper than a row of pink tents.
Obviously I can't talk more about the film without mentioning the mahoosive spoilier
William the Bastard deserved his title
'You can see Putin setting a honey trap for Boris when he's PM, and Boris falling for it Winnie the Pooh and a honeypot'
"it will save quite a bit. As well as the producer, also paid rights to Granada, 4 actors, presenter. All added up, unfortunately" - Nick Sutton
Perhaps you could do it with less paid talent? Just a thought.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/714177381465001985
Honestly, performances were fine, and in fact I really liked the idea of the heroes being in opposition due to people blaming Superman for the conclusion of the last movie (that's not a spoiler, given the title of this one), as one thing that annoyed me about the reaction to the last one was people complaining about the destruction, which I felt would only be a problem if there were no consequences, which given how central it was to the plot of this movie, was clearly not the case and seemed part of the plan even then.
Good night all.
Sunil: You have allowed this Europhile Chancellor to twist your mind, until now, until now you've become the very thing you swore to destroy.
TSE: Don't lecture me, Sunil! I see through the lies of the LEAVE campaign. I do not fear the European Union as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire!
Sunil: Your new Empire?
TSE: Don't make me MODERATE you.
Sunil: TSE, my allegiance is to the
RepublicMonarchy, to democracy!TSE: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy.
Sunil: [realizing that TSE is consumed by evil and there's no reasoning with him anymore] Only a Europhile deals in absolutes.
[draws his lightsaber] I will do what I must!
TSE: You will try!
[draws his own lightsaber and confronts Sunil!]
[later during a pause in the battle]
Sunil: I have failed you, TSE. I have failed you.
TSE: I should have known the LEAVERS were plotting to take over. Chancellor Osborne has showed me the true ways of the Force.
Sunil: TSE, Chancellor Osborne is evil! The Europhiles are evil. The Daft Side of the Force is an evil presence.
TSE: From my point of view, it is the LEAVERS who are evil.
Sunil: Well, then you really are lost!
TSE: [raises his lightsaber] This is the end for you... my former master.
[the battle resumes, but even later on, Sunil manages to reach a vantage point overlooking TSE]
Sunil: It's over TSE, I have the high ground!
TSE: You MISUNDERESTIMATE my power!
Sunil: Don't try it!
[TSE leaps at Sunil, but the latter anticipates his move and promptly lightsabers TSE's rather fetching Red Shoes of Power off, leaving him writhing in pain on the ground, crippled and temporarily bereft of his Force abilities!]
Sunil: You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the Europhiles, not join them! You were to bring balance to PoliticalBetting.com, not leave it in Daftness!
TSE: [shouts] I HATE you!
Sunil: You were my brother, TSE. I loved you.
[Sunil, unable to bring himself to finish off poor TSE, walks away from the scene, disconsolate...
To Be Continued....]
Even a cheerful "bugger off" would have been an acknowledgement.
Gave up ages ago.
It would have been 6.5/10 if they cut a lot of the unnecessary crap. I found myself drifting off at one point although that was partly down to consuming a large amount of beer beforehand.
After watching the movie and reading some of the major plot holes on the internet I would give it a far lower rating. The acting, special effects, etc., were fine, the plot is incredibly weak.
29% - Rotten Tomatoes
People don't cease to be moral actors in the absence of an imaginary authority.
X throws [spoiler hidden] away then 10 mins later, without anyone telling them, or them realising why it might be needed, decides to go get it back.
DC should have followed Marvel's lead of how to put a cinematic universe together.
Also the way this comic worked was this was long after the JLA had been formed and Batman and Superman fell out.
The movie put the cart before the horse.
This one is spot on. BoJo has been ineffective, and doesn't look to have the support in Parliament to make the final two. He is hurt partly by his clowning, no one wants a bufoon as PM, even one who may be excellent company at dinner. The main reason though is that he seems to believe in nothing beyond himself. He is more inconsistent even than SeanT. What direction would the party go with him in charge? Who knows? Even Boris himself doesn't know!
He won't publish a rant and it needs to have some form of betting angle or guidance for punters - it's a political betting site after all.
Beyond that, if it doesn't cause any legal issues, I don't see why OGH wouldn't consider it.
Through a series of questions that look to be describing utilitarian situations: the death of one to avoid the death of multiple others, a minor change in the scenario setup universally produces a change in response across all creeds, faiths, nationalities from Italian Roman Catholics to English athiest to remote South American tribes.
Then from that base level their is an evolving cultural level that has nothing to do with God or gods, unless God changed his mind at some point on the morality of slave ownership or homosexual intercourse.
An ex-colleague of mine and his wife lost their baby child in an horrific accident, and their church helped them through a hideously awful time. The kindness and compassion of strangers, connected only through God, was a wonder. (*)
On the other hand, I have known several people who suffered long-term harm through religion, and in one case it eventually led him to take his own life. Sick, evil people using religion to hide, and other religious people hiding their crimes, have hurt so many people.
(*) It should be said that the kindness and compassion of strangers can be seen everywhere, and not just through religion. When I was taken ill our neighbours helped tremendously, despite being warned, and not knowing whether or not it was the infectious form of meningitis.
I was desperate for a loo, and the ICC in Birmingham was the nearest place
That's more than most of us have been honoured with. Well done!
Despite thinking the ref will be close with Brexit possible, those folk I expected to be clear Leavers I am finding to be weak Remainers. It's primarily the risk thing.
I'm sure you could pen something worth reading and possibly even with a betting angle as I suggested earlier - something about why 50-55% LEAVE is a good bet.
As to "balance" - I think the number of posts, if not the number of posters, shows a clear majority for LEAVE. As for the threads themselves, you're right, we need more pro-LEAVE pieces.
Over to you.
"This book challenges some of our longest held assumptions about the differences between Anglo-Saxons and Celts – perceived differences that have informed our collective sense of identity. Orthodox history has long taught that the Romans found a uniformly Celtic population throughout the British Isles, but that the peoples of the English heartland fell victim to genocide by the Anglo-Saxon hordes during the fifth and sixth centuries.
"Now Stephen Oppenheimer’s groundbreaking genetic research has revealed that the ‘Anglo-Saxon invasion’ contributed only a tiny fraction to the English gene pool. In fact, three quarters of English people can trace an unbroken line of genetic descent through their parental genes from settlers arriving long before the introduction of farming.
"Synthesizing the genetic evidence with linguistics, archaeology and the historical record, Oppenheimer shows how long-term Scandinavian trade and immigration contributed the remaining quarter – mostly before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. These migrations may have introduced the earliest forms of English."
Some (but not all) religions are thus comparatively benign repositories for the collective human angst, viewed against the alternatives...
On religion, I absolutely agree that it can have a reinforcing effect for people with good intenitons and provide solace and support for many people in difficulty. I didn't mean to generalise.
Marx, while in the Dawkins camp, was not unsympathetic, and uncharacteristically gentle about it:
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
Sky News
Vote Leave Apologises Over Wrong Names On List
The campaign group wrongly included the names of two leading British businessmen among 250 signatories to an anti-EU letter
1. Our business definitely benefits from full, unfettered access to the single market and I don't see all this red tape that is supposed to hold us back.
2. Being based in an EU member state has not prevented us from doing business and growing in either the US or Asia.
3. Personally, I like the idea of the four freedoms and would not want to put them at risk.
4. The fact that we are having this referendum in the first place says to me the British people remain sovereign. We have the right to decide.
We are being asked to give up stuff with absolutely no guarantees that we will end up with anything better or even similar. I just don't see the point.
Curtice: http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/
Fisher: http://electionsetc.com
Anybody know of any more?
Sorry Sunil but Oppenheimer's lingusitic theories are complete rubbish
How so?
Well I could go give you chapter and verse but this perhaps isn't the right place. Suffice to say you will not find any experts on Old English who take them remotely seriously. I'm less well informed on the genetics but have read some fairly damning stuff on that too, by people who are (and note Oppenheimer is not a geneticist, really, either).
This link will start you off
http://www.grsampson.net/qoppenheimer.html
Be LEAVE!
They are Brits, though with different heritage within the last couple of generations. They are very conscious of their different ethnicity to the 'ethnic English', in spite of being born in England.
Just yesterday I walked past a Eastern European drunk p!$$ing in the bushes on the main road in broad daylight.
Don't know how these drunks are surviving over here,plenty on the local bench.