Wasn't someone claiming yesterday that the London property market was a disaster ?
' London’s skyline continues to head upwards, with a record 76 tall buildings due to be completed this year, a three-fold increase from 2018.
The number of tall towers – more than 20 storeys high – planned or under construction has also hit a new record of 541, up from 510 in 2017, according to the latest research from the industry forum New London Architecture (NLA). '
Every year, in London, 6-8,000 apartments are sold for more than £1m. (Including resale.)
There are between 42,000 and 48,000 £1m+ apartments currently under construction in London. If we assume that they will all come on stream between now and the end of 2020, that's an insane amount of new supply.
If you want to buy a super cool apartment in Central London, I would reckon December 2019 to Feb 2020 would be the best time. There will be some real bargains.
(And you probably don't want to work in the high end London residential construction market from about ummm... mid 2020.)
When you explain it like that it seems very much maximum bubble.
As you tend to get ten years into an economic cycle.
Serious question - who on earth would want a job in the Labour party complaints department at the moment? I hope the wages are damn good, as regardless of political inclination it seems like it would be an awful bloody job.
Front row seats to a genuine political meltdown? As long as you don't have skin in the game (and can get another job after) it sounds absolutely fantastic.
Also probably very harrowing. Actually, I think all jobs dealing with complaints are probably pretty unpleasant all the time, given the garbage they have to wade through.
Oi - that's 34 years of my working life you've just trashed!!
But we're made of tough stuff. -
Oh, sorry. I was thinking of the armies of poor souls Facebook and the like have recruited to wade through endless videos and decide whether they constitute abuse etc. Based on your previous posts I understand you deal with rather more complex but less disturbing issues, which I wouldn't even necessarily recognise as being part of the same industry. I would guess that the Labour team are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, usually closer to your end but right now much closer than they ought to ever get to the other.
I have read some pretty disturbing stuff in my time. Suspected child pornography was the worst. Not routine, thank God. But not as bad as what Facebook moderators have to read, I imagine, day in, day out.
Whatever the subject matter, you need a hide of steel, a bloody good sense of humour and a tremendous team around you. The Labour complaints team sounds utterly dysfunctional, judging by the leaks. I feel sorry for them. Whatever their failings no-one at the top has their back and they will end up being blamed. Sauve qui peut.
Understood. Meant no disrespect; just that I don't think I'd want to try it!
Given even the Met Commissioner has not ruled out army assistance I fail to see the problem, knife crime is out of control in London and much of the country as the weekend's events attest
The whole “sending in the army” thing is a load of bollocks.
They *might* be used in support roles... When Ms Dick was challenged on the matter during an LBC Radio interview on Tuesday, she said she found it “hard to imagine” asking for soldiers to be deployed on the streets.
But she added some military staff could perform support roles. She said: “I don’t exclude it, I really don’t....
The real point the police have been making is that they are under-resourced and understaffed.
How can any sane Tory not see that we need to urgently clear out May and her talentless thrombi*?
*slow moving clots......
Don't most agree with that? The problem, or at least one of them, is what's the bloody point of doing so right now? The Brexit issue won't get better unless someone has a time machine.
Serious question - who on earth would want a job in the Labour party complaints department at the moment? I hope the wages are damn good, as regardless of political inclination it seems like it would be an awful bloody job.
Front row seats to a genuine political meltdown? As long as you don't have skin in the game (and can get another job after) it sounds absolutely fantastic.
Also probably very harrowing. Actually, I think all jobs dealing with complaints are probably pretty unpleasant all the time, given the garbage they have to wade through.
Oi - that's 34 years of my working life you've just trashed!!
But we're made of tough stuff. -
Oh, sorry. I was thinking of the armies of poor souls Facebook and the like have recruited to wade through endless videos and decide whether they constitute abuse etc. Based on your previous posts I understand you deal with rather more complex but less disturbing issues, which I wouldn't even necessarily recognise as being part of the same industry. I would guess that the Labour team are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, usually closer to your end but right now much closer than they ought to ever get to the other.
I have read some pretty disturbing stuff in my time. Suspected child pornography was the worst. Not routine, thank God. But not as bad as what Facebook moderators have to read, I imagine, day in, day out.
Whatever the subject matter, you need a hide of steel, a bloody good sense of humour and a tremendous team around you. The Labour complaints team sounds utterly dysfunctional, judging by the leaks. I feel sorry for them. Whatever their failings no-one at the top has their back and they will end up being blamed. Sauve qui peut.
Understood. Meant no disrespect; just that I don't think I'd want to try it!
I'd hate to do what moderators do - reading abuse day in day out, let alone watching videos must drive you mad.
Is there nothing the douce won’t say for a headline?
It would appear not. He recently made a great fanfare of announcing the name of an RN vessel which won't be launched until 2035.
Also, whenever two or more crabs are stood in one place for more than 5 minutes he turns them into a fully fledged squadron complete with a barrage of media releases and an OF-4 to supervise them in order to give the impression that the RAF isn't shrinking fast.
Serious question - who on earth would want a job in the Labour party complaints department at the moment? I hope the wages are damn good, as regardless of political inclination it seems like it would be an awful bloody job.
Front row seats to a genuine political meltdown? As long as you don't have skin in the game (and can get another job after) it sounds absolutely fantastic.
Also probably very harrowing. Actually, I think all jobs dealing with complaints are probably pretty unpleasant all the time, given the garbage they have to wade through.
Oi - that's 34 years of my working life you've just trashed!!
But we're made of tough stuff. -
Oh, sorry. I was thinking of the armies of poor souls Facebook and the like have recruited to wade through endless videos and decide whether they constitute abuse etc. Based on your previous posts I understand you deal with rather more complex but less disturbing issues, which I wouldn't even necessarily recognise as being part of the same industry. I would guess that the Labour team are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, usually closer to your end but right now much closer than they ought to ever get to the other.
I have read some pretty disturbing stuff in my time. Suspected child pornography was the worst. Not routine, thank God. But not as bad as what Facebook moderators have to read, I imagine, day in, day out.
Whatever the subject matter, you need a hide of steel, a bloody good sense of humour and a tremendous team around you. The Labour complaints team sounds utterly dysfunctional, judging by the leaks. I feel sorry for them. Whatever their failings no-one at the top has their back and they will end up being blamed. Sauve qui peut.
Understood. Meant no disrespect; just that I don't think I'd want to try it!
I'd hate to do what moderators do - reading abuse day in day out, let alone watching videos must drive you mad.
I'm worried about what the algorithms they are no doubt developing or already using to remove such content will do - when those machine intelligences come for us, we'll have earned it.
In the event of No Deal Brexit, I would estimate the UK economy would take a £30-40bn hit. And I'd reckon the EU would be worse off, with an impact of £50-60bn.
So, the EU takes a hit 40-50% more than we do.
But, it's also amortized over more people. In percentage terms, Ireland (by a fair margin) will be most impacted, we'll be second, and then the percentage impact on Germany, France etc will be relatively small.
Different sectors will experience different effects as well.
Mark Carney seemed more positive today - imagine how much easier it would be if the government planning had been organised properly.
Is there nothing the douce won’t say for a headline?
It would appear not. He recently made a great fanfare of announcing the name of an RN vessel which won't be launched until 2035.
Also, whenever two or more crabs are stood in one place for more than 5 minutes he turns them into a fully fledged squadron complete with a barrage of media releases and an OF-4 to supervise them in order to give the impression that the RAF isn't shrinking fast.
The news moves at 100mph these days, so hard to remember the timescale, but didn't this roaster try a bit of gunboat diplomacy with the Chinese recently?
It is a mystery why LibDems aren't starting to show some kind of up-tick with the state of the two main parties.
Surely the Coalition hangover is starting to wear off?
Apparently not. And given the visceral reactions May and Corbyn provoke, anything the LDs say or do that seems to be closer to one or the other will see them accused of kowtowing to the Tories again, or just being Labour lite.
I am looking forward to seeing a list of Tigger policies to see what is so different from the LDs, to see if there is any policy reason they could not bring themselves to join the existing referendum backing party, or if it really was just down to branding.
Labour splitters tend to be a bit more authoritarian than the Lib Dems. Some of the things that mark the Lib Dems out, their more liberal approach with say drug policy are actually things the Labour left is far more likely to back than the Labour right.
They have a more middle of the road economic approach and they back a people's vote (although so does everyone but the Conservatives now) but issues that fall outside those would cause a lot of disagreement. Even foreign policy would cause some disagreement, the Labour right were some of the biggest supporters of the Iraq war and the Lib Dems some of the biggest opponents.
Given even the Met Commissioner has not ruled out army assistance I fail to see the problem, knife crime is out of control in London and much of the country as the weekend's events attest
The whole “sending in the army” thing is a load of bollocks.
They *might* be used in support roles... When Ms Dick was challenged on the matter during an LBC Radio interview on Tuesday, she said she found it “hard to imagine” asking for soldiers to be deployed on the streets.
But she added some military staff could perform support roles. She said: “I don’t exclude it, I really don’t....
The real point the police have been making is that they are under-resourced and understaffed.
As even Matt has twigged.
Of course they are and we need more targeted stop and search and more police on the streets but until then there may be a need for the army to fill in the gaps if absolutely necessary
His pronouncements suggest he is more half cock. How can any sane Tory not see that we need to urgently clear out May and her talentless thrombi*? *slow moving clots......
Mr Mark, I find I am agreeing with you more and more frequently. May and her circle are the cream* of England. * rich, think and full of clots" and a bit jammy too.....
Given even the Met Commissioner has not ruled out army assistance I fail to see the problem, knife crime is out of control in London and much of the country as the weekend's events attest
The whole “sending in the army” thing is a load of bollocks.
They *might* be used in support roles... When Ms Dick was challenged on the matter during an LBC Radio interview on Tuesday, she said she found it “hard to imagine” asking for soldiers to be deployed on the streets.
But she added some military staff could perform support roles. She said: “I don’t exclude it, I really don’t....
The real point the police have been making is that they are under-resourced and understaffed.
As even Matt has twigged.
Of course they are and we need more targeted stop and search and more police on the streets but until then there may be a need for the army to fill in the gaps if absolutely necessary
@HYUFD, mate, it's non-sensical. What exactly do you think they would do?
Given even the Met Commissioner has not ruled out army assistance I fail to see the problem, knife crime is out of control in London and much of the country as the weekend's events attest
The whole “sending in the army” thing is a load of bollocks.
They *might* be used in support roles... When Ms Dick was challenged on the matter during an LBC Radio interview on Tuesday, she said she found it “hard to imagine” asking for soldiers to be deployed on the streets.
But she added some military staff could perform support roles. She said: “I don’t exclude it, I really don’t....
The real point the police have been making is that they are under-resourced and understaffed.
As even Matt has twigged.
Of course they are and we need more targeted stop and search and more police on the streets but until then there may be a need for the army to fill in the gaps if absolutely necessary
While I am as keen on a moral panic as the next DM reader, did it work out well last time the Army went to the aid of the civil police?
His pronouncements suggest he is more half cock. How can any sane Tory not see that we need to urgently clear out May and her talentless thrombi*? *slow moving clots......
Mr Mark, I find I am agreeing with you more and more frequently. May and her circle are the cream* of England. * rich, think and full of clots" and a bit jammy too.....
You make them sound almost as attractive as a Devon cream tea, an accolade they certainly don't deserve....
Is there nothing the douce won’t say for a headline?
It would appear not. He recently made a great fanfare of announcing the name of an RN vessel which won't be launched until 2035.
Also, whenever two or more crabs are stood in one place for more than 5 minutes he turns them into a fully fledged squadron complete with a barrage of media releases and an OF-4 to supervise them in order to give the impression that the RAF isn't shrinking fast.
The news moves at 100mph these days, so hard to remember the timescale, but didn't this roaster try a bit of gunboat diplomacy with the Chinese recently?
He implied that the long planned QNLZ EASTPAC deployment in 2021 would be used to contest Chinese sovereignty claims causing extreme saltiness in the Middle Kingdom.
Losing a carrier would destroy the career of everyone from 1SL down so they will NEVER be placed anywhere near a potentially hostile peer or near peer force never mind the People's Liberation Army Navy.
Given even the Met Commissioner has not ruled out army assistance I fail to see the problem, knife crime is out of control in London and much of the country as the weekend's events attest
The whole “sending in the army” thing is a load of bollocks.
They *might* be used in support roles... When Ms Dick was challenged on the matter during an LBC Radio interview on Tuesday, she said she found it “hard to imagine” asking for soldiers to be deployed on the streets.
But she added some military staff could perform support roles. She said: “I don’t exclude it, I really don’t....
The real point the police have been making is that they are under-resourced and understaffed.
As even Matt has twigged.
Of course they are and we need more targeted stop and search and more police on the streets but until then there may be a need for the army to fill in the gaps if absolutely necessary
While I am as keen on a moral panic as the next DM reader, did it work out well last time the Army went to the aid of the civil police?
And how come they managed to drastically reduce knife crime in Glasgow without resorting to the Army?
Given even the Met Commissioner has not ruled out army assistance I fail to see the problem, knife crime is out of control in London and much of the country as the weekend's events attest
The whole “sending in the army” thing is a load of bollocks.
They *might* be used in support roles... When Ms Dick was challenged on the matter during an LBC Radio interview on Tuesday, she said she found it “hard to imagine” asking for soldiers to be deployed on the streets.
But she added some military staff could perform support roles. She said: “I don’t exclude it, I really don’t....
The real point the police have been making is that they are under-resourced and understaffed.
As even Matt has twigged.
Of course they are and we need more targeted stop and search and more police on the streets but until then there may be a need for the army to fill in the gaps if absolutely necessary
While I am as keen on a moral panic as the next DM reader, did it work out well last time the Army went to the aid of the civil police?
And how come they managed to drastically reduce knife crime in Glasgow without resorting to the Army?
Let the bad guys stab each other until it was last man standing?
Given even the Met Commissioner has not ruled out army assistance I fail to see the problem, knife crime is out of control in London and much of the country as the weekend's events attest
The whole “sending in the army” thing is a load of bollocks.
They *might* be used in support roles... When Ms Dick was challenged on the matter during an LBC Radio interview on Tuesday, she said she found it “hard to imagine” asking for soldiers to be deployed on the streets.
But she added some military staff could perform support roles. She said: “I don’t exclude it, I really don’t....
The real point the police have been making is that they are under-resourced and understaffed.
As even Matt has twigged.
Of course they are and we need more targeted stop and search and more police on the streets but until then there may be a need for the army to fill in the gaps if absolutely necessary
@HYUFD, mate, it's non-sensical. What exactly do you think they would do?
It's a ridiculous suggestion.
Any fool can see that what we need to do is bring back National Service.
Serious question - who on earth would want a job in the Labour party complaints department at the moment? I hope the wages are damn good, as regardless of political inclination it seems like it would be an awful bloody job.
Front row seats to a genuine political meltdown? As long as you don't have skin in the game (and can get another job after) it sounds absolutely fantastic.
Also probably very harrowing. Actually, I think all jobs dealing with complaints are probably pretty unpleasant all the time, given the garbage they have to wade through.
Oi - that's 34 years of my working life you've just trashed!!
But we're made of tough stuff. -
Oh, sorry. I was thinking of the armies of poor souls Facebook and the like have recruited to wade through endless videos and decide whether they constitute abuse etc. Based on your previous posts I understand you deal with rather more complex but less disturbing issues, which I wouldn't even necessarily recognise as being part of the same industry. I would guess that the Labour team are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, usually closer to your end but right now much closer than they ought to ever get to the other.
I have read some pretty disturbing stuff in my time. Suspected child pornography was the worst. Not routine, thank God. But not as bad as what Facebook moderators have to read, I imagine, day in, day out.
Whatever the subject matter, you need a hide of steel, a bloody good sense of humour and a tremendous team around you. The Labour complaints team sounds utterly dysfunctional, judging by the leaks. I feel sorry for them. Whatever their failings no-one at the top has their back and they will end up being blamed. Sauve qui peut.
There was a very interesting article in the NYT in January about internet moderators in one large Asian country. To allow them to censor properly, they first have to teach the pro to-moderators the history of their country which has been censored and hidden. Plus A.A.Milne.
Found this quite amusing. Presumably the JC will be banning their own columnist next.
Good point. A similarly good point would be made if you were to walk up to a group of black guys near you and start throwing the N-word around just like they might be doing amongst themselves. Or maybe do it with all your black friends.
Found this quite amusing. Presumably the JC will be banning their own columnist next.
Good point. A similarly good point would be made if you were to walk up to a group of black guys near you and start throwing the N-word around just like they might be doing amongst themselves. Or maybe do it with all your black friends.
If I was black that would be acceptable, what would be a bit weird was if I was black, used it myself but then complained about another black person using it.
Wasn't someone claiming yesterday that the London property market was a disaster ?
' London’s skyline continues to head upwards, with a record 76 tall buildings due to be completed this year, a three-fold increase from 2018.
The number of tall towers – more than 20 storeys high – planned or under construction has also hit a new record of 541, up from 510 in 2017, according to the latest research from the industry forum New London Architecture (NLA). '
Every year, in London, 6-8,000 apartments are sold for more than £1m. (Including resale.)
There are between 42,000 and 48,000 £1m+ apartments currently under construction in London. If we assume that they will all come on stream between now and the end of 2020, that's an insane amount of new supply.
If you want to buy a super cool apartment in Central London, I would reckon December 2019 to Feb 2020 would be the best time. There will be some real bargains.
(And you probably don't want to work in the high end London residential construction market from about ummm... mid 2020.)
When you explain it like that it seems very much maximum bubble.
As you tend to get ten years into an economic cycle.
And we know what tends to follow ...
I suspect the real world (outside of London) effects of this will be pretty small. The London and the non-London property markets have become very disconnected. A fall in the price of London apartments most screws the Candy Brothers, RBS and Singaporean dentists who thought the London market could only go in one direction.
That being said: I expect that it will make places like Putney, Richmond and Twickenham swing against the Conservative Party. There's nothing like being underwater on a £2m two bedroom apartment to make you cross with the government of the day.
"Context" is just not a word in your dictionary, is it?
Go on, read the whole article (Jo Bird, not Annie Hall). Have a look through all the things she was recorded saying. Regardless of what you might think the headline implies, she's been suspended because of the whole lot, not just the single rather feeble joke.
"Context" is just not a word in your dictionary, is it?
Go on, read the whole article (Jo Bird, not Annie Hall). Have a look through all the things she was recorded saying. Regardless of what you might think the headline implies, she's been suspended because of the whole lot, not just the single rather feeble joke.
The context makes it look better, the RW types don't take things out of context to make them look better, they go for maximum effect by taking it out of context. Whenever you look into these things you discover they aren't as bad as they have made them seem. But the likes of the JC know full well people won't bother to discover the context hence why they didn't mention she was Jewish in the headline and missed out themselves doing exactly the same thing.
They have decided she is a bad jew and they know plenty of angry white people willing to join in the condemnation of the bad jew.
The JC doing the same thing themselves is of course perfectly acceptable... because they are the good jews.
"Context" is just not a word in your dictionary, is it?
Go on, read the whole article (Jo Bird, not Annie Hall). Have a look through all the things she was recorded saying. Regardless of what you might think the headline implies, she's been suspended because of the whole lot, not just the single rather feeble joke.
The context makes it look better, the RW types don't take things out of context to make them look better, they go for maximum effect by taking it out of context. Whenever you look into these things you discover they aren't as bad as they have made them seem. But the likes of the JC know full well people won't bother to discover the context hence why they didn't mention she was Jewish in the headline and missed out themselves doing exactly the same thing.
They have decided she is a bad jew and they know plenty of angry white people willing to join in the condemnation of the bad jew.
The JC doing the same thing themselves is of course perfectly acceptable... because they are the good jews.
Wasn't someone claiming yesterday that the London property market was a disaster ?
' London’s skyline continues to head upwards, with a record 76 tall buildings due to be completed this year, a three-fold increase from 2018.
The number of tall towers – more than 20 storeys high – planned or under construction has also hit a new record of 541, up from 510 in 2017, according to the latest research from the industry forum New London Architecture (NLA). '
Every year, in London, 6-8,000 apartments are sold for more than £1m. (Including resale.)
There are between 42,000 and 48,000 £1m+ apartments currently under construction in London. If we assume that they will all come on stream between now and the end of 2020, that's an insane amount of new supply.
If you want to buy a super cool apartment in Central London, I would reckon December 2019 to Feb 2020 would be the best time. There will be some real bargains.
(And you probably don't want to work in the high end London residential construction market from about ummm... mid 2020.)
When you explain it like that it seems very much maximum bubble.
As you tend to get ten years into an economic cycle.
And we know what tends to follow ...
I suspect the real world (outside of London) effects of this will be pretty small. The London and the non-London property markets have become very disconnected. A fall in the price of London apartments most screws the Candy Brothers, RBS and Singaporean dentists who thought the London market could only go in one direction.
That being said: I expect that it will make places like Putney, Richmond and Twickenham swing against the Conservative Party. There's nothing like being underwater on a £2m two bedroom apartment to make you cross with the government of the day.
There is nothing like feeling / discovering your property is worth less than you hoped / thought it was to make you cross with the government of the day.
However history says it doesn't actually hold 100% true as in 1993 John Major still managed to form a Tory government.
The interesting thing about this fan fiction is that it underlines all the things that were supposed to happen in the brexiter worldview but didn't. The key one - that we also saw in the German carmaker stuff - is that they apparently don't really believe that EU decision-making is a thing, and instead think everything is secretly dictated by Angela Merkel. Whereas in fact the Commission got behind the country most affected and made sure their needs came first, even though it was only little Ireland.
"Context" is just not a word in your dictionary, is it?
Go on, read the whole article (Jo Bird, not Annie Hall). Have a look through all the things she was recorded saying. Regardless of what you might think the headline implies, she's been suspended because of the whole lot, not just the single rather feeble joke.
The context makes it look better, the RW types don't take things out of context to make them look better, they go for maximum effect by taking it out of context. Whenever you look into these things you discover they aren't as bad as they have made them seem. But the likes of the JC know full well people won't bother to discover the context hence why they didn't mention she was Jewish in the headline and missed out themselves doing exactly the same thing.
They have decided she is a bad jew and they know plenty of angry white people willing to join in the condemnation of the bad jew.
The JC doing the same thing themselves is of course perfectly acceptable... because they are the good jews.
I thought this was an interesting thread, gone for the 2nd tweet as the other mentions racism and I can't really be bothered to continue/add to that argument right now but it looks at what could be a growing problem for the Conservatives winning with the changing electorate.
"Context" is just not a word in your dictionary, is it?
Go on, read the whole article (Jo Bird, not Annie Hall). Have a look through all the things she was recorded saying. Regardless of what you might think the headline implies, she's been suspended because of the whole lot, not just the single rather feeble joke.
The context makes it look better, the RW types don't take things out of context to make them look better, they go for maximum effect by taking it out of context. Whenever you look into these things you discover they aren't as bad as they have made them seem. But the likes of the JC know full well people won't bother to discover the context hence why they didn't mention she was Jewish in the headline and missed out themselves doing exactly the same thing.
They have decided she is a bad jew and they know plenty of angry white people willing to join in the condemnation of the bad jew.
The JC doing the same thing themselves is of course perfectly acceptable... because they are the good jews.
Its bollocks.
So, you decided not to read the article, then?
I've read the article.
Cool. It seems clear to me that her comments (taken in full) are pretty ill-advised, at best, and not dissimilar to the remarks that got Chris Williamson thrown out. I'm You may disagree with the action taken, as is your right.
Either way, hopefully it is clear that your juxtaposition of the two headlines is wholly irrelevant, given the context provided. Her comments are also covered in detail by the Liverpool Echo, on the off chance you'll accept that as a more "balanced" source.
I thought this was an interesting thread, gone for the 2nd tweet as the other mentions racism and I can't really be bothered to continue/add to that argument right now but it looks at what could be a growing problem for the Conservatives winning with the changing electorate.
Longer term maybe, in the shorter term being seen to take a tough line with Islamic extremists plays well with the white working class vote and even in the longer term there is a difference between being more diverse and accepting Sharia Law
I thought this was an interesting thread, gone for the 2nd tweet as the other mentions racism and I can't really be bothered to continue/add to that argument right now but it looks at what could be a growing problem for the Conservatives winning with the changing electorate.
Longer term maybe, in the shorter term being seen to take a tough line with Islamic extremists plays well with the white working class vote and even in the longer term there is a difference between being more diverse and accepting Sharia Law
The thread somewhat goes into that, it talks about that section of the vote being maximised or close to maximised already making even standing still challenging.
"Context" is just not a word in your dictionary, is it?
Go on, read the whole article (Jo Bird, not Annie Hall). Have a look through all the things she was recorded saying. Regardless of what you might think the headline implies, she's been suspended because of the whole lot, not just the single rather feeble joke.
The context makes it look better, the RW types don't take things out of context to make them look better, they go for maximum effect by taking it out of context. Whenever you look into these things you discover they aren't as bad as they have made them seem. But the likes of the JC know full well people won't bother to discover the context hence why they didn't mention she was Jewish in the headline and missed out themselves doing exactly the same thing.
They have decided she is a bad jew and they know plenty of angry white people willing to join in the condemnation of the bad jew.
The JC doing the same thing themselves is of course perfectly acceptable... because they are the good jews.
Its bollocks.
So, you decided not to read the article, then?
I've read the article.
Cool. It seems clear to me that her comments (taken in full) are pretty ill-advised, at best, and not dissimilar to the remarks that got Chris Williamson thrown out. I'm You may disagree with the action taken, as is your right.
Either way, hopefully it is clear that your juxtaposition of the two headlines is wholly irrelevant, given the context provided. Her comments are also covered in detail by the Liverpool Echo, on the off chance you'll accept that as a more "balanced" source.
TBH the Liverpool echo probably wouldn't make the joke they were criticising themselves, at least I guess. The comments in the headline were the worst sounding, if they can appear in another headline in the JC then even the JC doesn't think the comment is that bad, the person is clearly their problem.
I thought this was an interesting thread, gone for the 2nd tweet as the other mentions racism and I can't really be bothered to continue/add to that argument right now but it looks at what could be a growing problem for the Conservatives winning with the changing electorate.
Longer term maybe, in the shorter term being seen to take a tough line with Islamic extremists plays well with the white working class vote and even in the longer term there is a difference between being more diverse and accepting Sharia Law
The thread somewhat goes into that, it talks about that section of the vote being maximised or close to maximised already making even standing still challenging.
It was the white working class that delivered victory for Brexit and Trump though
Sort of sidepoint but the whole sharia law thing is a bit of a misnomer, we are not under sharia law anywhere in the UK anymore than we are Jewish law, if you want to ignore every religious law (in any religion) you can do so and are free from legal punishment as long as you stick within British law.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Some idiots claiming they are going around enforcing sharia law in a neighbourhood have no more official claim than some white thugs going around enforcing a 'natives' only policy.
I thought this was an interesting thread, gone for the 2nd tweet as the other mentions racism and I can't really be bothered to continue/add to that argument right now but it looks at what could be a growing problem for the Conservatives winning with the changing electorate.
Longer term maybe, in the shorter term being seen to take a tough line with Islamic extremists plays well with the white working class vote and even in the longer term there is a difference between being more diverse and accepting Sharia Law
The thread somewhat goes into that, it talks about that section of the vote being maximised or close to maximised already making even standing still challenging.
It was the white working class that delivered victory for Brexit and Trump though
I did think about the Trump example as well, sort of a interesting symmetry between the Conservatives and the Republicans were they reached out a bit more electorally previously but both recently had success with going back and maximising the base instead.
The problem, which is the reason they started making these moves previously, is that base is shrinking. Even with both the Conservatives and the Republicans having similar success at maximising that section of electorate it will produce less returns as that section of the electorate shrinks. It will make the pushing out into the others sections of the electorate more difficult in future as well.
I thought this was an interesting thread, gone for the 2nd tweet as the other mentions racism and I can't really be bothered to continue/add to that argument right now but it looks at what could be a growing problem for the Conservatives winning with the changing electorate.
Longer term maybe, in the shorter term being seen to take a tough line with Islamic extremists plays well with the white working class vote and even in the longer term there is a difference between being more diverse and accepting Sharia Law
The thread somewhat goes into that, it talks about that section of the vote being maximised or close to maximised already making even standing still challenging.
It was the white working class that delivered victory for Brexit and Trump though
I did think about the Trump example as well, sort of a interesting symmetry between the Conservatives and the Republicans were they reached out a bit more electorally previously but both recently had success with going back and maximising the base instead.
The problem, which is the reason they started making these moves previously, is that base is shrinking. Even with both the Conservatives and the Republicans having similar success at maximising that section of electorate it will produce less returns as that section of the electorate shrinks. It will make the pushing out into the others sections of the electorate more difficult in future as well.
The demographics are far worse for the Republicans than they are for the Tories, and yet Trump won by superserving his base and actually fighting the culture wars rather than just appeasing the other side. Trump is painfully stupid, comically corrupt, and probably bonkers, but as a Tory I wish our leaders would show us one tenth of the love Trump shows his base.
I thought this was an interesting thread, gone for the 2nd tweet as the other mentions racism and I can't really be bothered to continue/add to that argument right now but it looks at what could be a growing problem for the Conservatives winning with the changing electorate.
Longer term maybe, in the shorter term being seen to take a tough line with Islamic extremists plays well with the white working class vote and even in the longer term there is a difference between being more diverse and accepting Sharia Law
The thread somewhat goes into that, it talks about that section of the vote being maximised or close to maximised already making even standing still challenging.
It was the white working class that delivered victory for Brexit and Trump though
I did think about the Trump example as well, sort of a interesting symmetry between the Conservatives and the Republicans were they reached out a bit more electorally previously but both recently had success with going back and maximising the base instead.
The problem, which is the reason they started making these moves previously, is that base is shrinking. Even with both the Conservatives and the Republicans having similar success at maximising that section of electorate it will produce less returns as that section of the electorate shrinks. It will make the pushing out into the others sections of the electorate more difficult in future as well.
The demographics are far worse for the Republicans than they are for the Tories, and yet Trump won by superserving his base and actually fighting the culture wars rather than just appeasing the other side. Trump is painfully stupid, comically corrupt, and probably bonkers, but as a Tory I wish our leaders would show us one tenth of the love Trump shows his base.
Sort of sidepoint but the whole sharia law thing is a bit of a misnomer, we are not under sharia law anywhere in the UK anymore than we are Jewish law, if you want to ignore every religious law (in any religion) you can do so and are free from legal punishment as long as you stick within British law.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Some idiots claiming they are going around enforcing sharia law in a neighbourhood have no more official claim than some white thugs going around enforcing a 'natives' only policy.
That is with less than 10% of the population Muslim, if we ever get close to 50% Muslim it might be a different story
Sort of sidepoint but the whole sharia law thing is a bit of a misnomer, we are not under sharia law anywhere in the UK anymore than we are Jewish law, if you want to ignore every religious law (in any religion) you can do so and are free from legal punishment as long as you stick within British law.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Some idiots claiming they are going around enforcing sharia law in a neighbourhood have no more official claim than some white thugs going around enforcing a 'natives' only policy.
That is with less than 10% of the population Muslim, if we ever get close to 50% Muslim it might be a different story
That only really works if 100% of Muslims wanted Sharia law as the official law of the land to replace British law.
Can't say I know the statistics of British Muslims (only ones who can vote count) who would want that but you'd probably need to be closer to the country being 100% Muslim. I wouldn't be surprised if even then you wouldn't actually get a majority for it.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Right, or rather regardless of your religion, you can enter into contracts that specify something or someone as an arbitrator. If there's nothing otherwise illegal about the contract, you can then ask the regular courts to enforce the decision.
If the counterparties all believe in the same invisible superhero, they'll sometimes ask a religious court to be their arbitrator, and arbitrate with reference to the doctrine of their fellow invisible superhero believers.
I thought this was an interesting thread, gone for the 2nd tweet as the other mentions racism and I can't really be bothered to continue/add to that argument right now but it looks at what could be a growing problem for the Conservatives winning with the changing electorate.
Longer term maybe, in the shorter term being seen to take a tough line with Islamic extremists plays well with the white working class vote and even in the longer term there is a difference between being more diverse and accepting Sharia Law
The thread somewhat goes into that, it talks about that section of the vote being maximised or close to maximised already making even standing still challenging.
It was the white working class that delivered victory for Brexit and Trump though
I did think about the Trump example as well, sort of a interesting symmetry between the Conservatives and the Republicans were they reached out a bit more electorally previously but both recently had success with going back and maximising the base instead.
The problem, which is the reason they started making these moves previously, is that base is shrinking. Even with both the Conservatives and the Republicans having similar success at maximising that section of electorate it will produce less returns as that section of the electorate shrinks. It will make the pushing out into the others sections of the electorate more difficult in future as well.
The demographics are far worse for the Republicans than they are for the Tories, and yet Trump won by superserving his base and actually fighting the culture wars rather than just appeasing the other side. Trump is painfully stupid, comically corrupt, and probably bonkers, but as a Tory I wish our leaders would show us one tenth of the love Trump shows his base.
Boris might
With JRM ruling himself out and talking of backing Boris he is definitely the obvious choice if you want a 'champion of the base'. Other factors will probably hit his chances though. I think he'd win the final 2 but I can't see him making the final 2.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Right, or rather regardless of your religion, you can enter into contracts that specify something or someone as an arbitrator. If there's nothing otherwise illegal about the contract, you can then ask the regular courts to enforce the decision.
If the counterparties all believe in the same invisible superhero, they'll sometimes ask a religious court to be their arbitrator, and arbitrate with reference to the doctrine of their fellow invisible superhero believers.
I'd join in the mockery but I have a meeting with the jedi council soon to settle a land dispute.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Right, or rather regardless of your religion, you can enter into contracts that specify something or someone as an arbitrator. If there's nothing otherwise illegal about the contract, you can then ask the regular courts to enforce the decision.
If the counterparties all believe in the same invisible superhero, they'll sometimes ask a religious court to be their arbitrator, and arbitrate with reference to the doctrine of their fellow invisible superhero believers.
I'd join in the mockery but I have a meeting with the jedi council soon to settle a land dispute.
Trade disputes that go on for some time often require Jedi intervention. I will follow your career with much interest, young Jezziah...
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Right, or rather regardless of your religion, you can enter into contracts that specify something or someone as an arbitrator. If there's nothing otherwise illegal about the contract, you can then ask the regular courts to enforce the decision.
If the counterparties all believe in the same invisible superhero, they'll sometimes ask a religious court to be their arbitrator, and arbitrate with reference to the doctrine of their fellow invisible superhero believers.
I'd join in the mockery but I have a meeting with the jedi council soon to settle a land dispute.
Trade disputes that go on for some time often require Jedi intervention. I will follow your career with much interest, young Jezziah...
If that fails onto the Supreme Chancellor, such a kindly looking man, very wise as well. He'll set us on the right path.
"Context" is just not a word in your dictionary, is it?
Go on, read the whole article (Jo Bird, not Annie Hall). Have a look through all the things she was recorded saying. Regardless of what you might think the headline implies, she's been suspended because of the whole lot, not just the single rather feeble joke.
The context makes it look better, the RW types don't take things out of context to make them look better, they go for maximum effect by taking it out of context. Whenever you look into these things you discover they aren't as bad as they have made them seem. But the likes of the JC know full well people won't bother to discover the context hence why they didn't mention she was Jewish in the headline and missed out themselves doing exactly the same thing.
They have decided she is a bad jew and they know plenty of angry white people willing to join in the condemnation of the bad jew.
The JC doing the same thing themselves is of course perfectly acceptable... because they are the good jews.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Right, or rather regardless of your religion, you can enter into contracts that specify something or someone as an arbitrator. If there's nothing otherwise illegal about the contract, you can then ask the regular courts to enforce the decision.
If the counterparties all believe in the same invisible superhero, they'll sometimes ask a religious court to be their arbitrator, and arbitrate with reference to the doctrine of their fellow invisible superhero believers.
I'd join in the mockery but I have a meeting with the jedi council soon to settle a land dispute.
Trade disputes that go on for some time often require Jedi intervention. I will follow your career with much interest, young Jezziah...
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Jezziah the Wise? I thought not. It’s not a story the PB moderators would tell you...
Sort of sidepoint but the whole sharia law thing is a bit of a misnomer, we are not under sharia law anywhere in the UK anymore than we are Jewish law, if you want to ignore every religious law (in any religion) you can do so and are free from legal punishment as long as you stick within British law.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Some idiots claiming they are going around enforcing sharia law in a neighbourhood have no more official claim than some white thugs going around enforcing a 'natives' only policy.
The situation is more complex. Religion goes deeper into someone's psyche than normal contracts and laws. This means there can be considerable pressure put on someone to follow the religious law, often interpreted by some self-appointed person, and societal pressure from other followers can be applied into them doing so.
As an example: the entire process of Jewish divorce is inherently sexist and should be banned on that basis alone. The fact we can get 'chained women' in the UK - where women are forced to remain in marriages because their husbands do not agree - is something that belongs in the early part of the last century, not this one.
I'd feel much better about religions allowing their supporters to follow their own laws in such areas if those religions weren't inherently and nastily sexist. We've had a long-term task in this country towards equality: and that should mean equality for all, including in law.
Sort of sidepoint but the whole sharia law thing is a bit of a misnomer, we are not under sharia law anywhere in the UK anymore than we are Jewish law, if you want to ignore every religious law (in any religion) you can do so and are free from legal punishment as long as you stick within British law.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Some idiots claiming they are going around enforcing sharia law in a neighbourhood have no more official claim than some white thugs going around enforcing a 'natives' only policy.
The situation is more complex. Religion goes deeper into someone's psyche than normal contracts and laws. This means there can be considerable pressure put on someone to follow the religious law, often interpreted by some self-appointed person, and societal pressure from other followers can be applied into them doing so.
As an example: the entire process of Jewish divorce is inherently sexist and should be banned on that basis alone. The fact we can get 'chained women' in the UK - where women are forced to remain in marriages because their husbands do not agree - is something that belongs in the early part of the last century, not this one.
I'd feel much better about religions allowing their supporters to follow their own laws in such areas if those religions weren't inherently and nastily sexist. We've had a long-term task in this country towards equality: and that should mean equality for all, including in law.
I don't usually but as there wasn't any goading...
It was brought up in a way that suggested it was something for non religious people to worry about being forced on them, which as per my reply isn't the case at all.
There are valid concerns about those who choose to live with these rules (although this wasn't the concern of the original mention) if there was a case for banning them that would be it. I worry most of the ill effects would exist anyway as the pressures you mention can still be applied but I don't have any attachment to them
There is equality for all under law though, they make rulings but these don't trump British law. People can choose not to live with these rulings. Just as there are many sexist things people can choose not to live with but do so because of various pressures.
Edit: If say divorce was one area these rules caused problems and very little in the way of solutions but other areas didn't I would be happy for that to be taken from them.
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
I don't usually but as there wasn't any goading...
It was brought up in a way that suggested it was something for non religious people to worry about being forced on them, which as per my reply isn't the case at all.
There are valid concerns about those who choose to live with these rules (although this wasn't the concern of the original mention) if there was a case for banning them that would be it. I worry most of the ill effects would exist anyway as the pressures you mention can still be applied but I don't have any attachment to them
There is equality for all under law though, they make rulings but these don't trump British law. People can choose not to live with these rulings. Just as there are many sexist things people can choose not to live with but do so because of various pressures.
Edit: If say divorce was one area these rules caused problems and very little in the way of solutions but other areas didn't I would be happy for that to be taken from them.
'Goading' ? LOL.
You're someone who accuses me of being an Islamaphobe (on no evidence whatsoever), and of being something to do with the NSDAP - just because you lose an argument.
As for the discussion: the problem is societal within those groups. There is a tendency for the more extremely religious someone is, for them to associate within those groups: to attend church, synagogue, mosque with other believers, to live in the same area, attend the same shops, schools etc. That is all good and well.
But it does mean that there can be considerable pressure put on them through family members and friends by unelected, often unqualified religious (male) officials - who may not know the UK law as well as the religious law. And since the majority are male, it's women who suffer most.
This is particularly true for women who are not allowed as much access to the wider world.
I don't know what the answer is. But the current situation is not equal, and it does not help integration or freedoms. We've spent a couple of centuries trying to disentangle our laws from religious ones, an ongoing process. That was done for a reason.
We seem to have reached the point where our Prime Minister thinks that a "soft" Brexit - by far the least damaging for the country - can be used as some kind of "threat".
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
Mr. L, I'm not especially young (certainly not as young as your son, as that would've made me 3 when I joined PB...) and I thought it was one of the biggest stories of the day. And it didn't even make the news. Bloody weird.
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
Well recent events certainly ain't gonna inspire him to enter politics.
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
Well recent events certainly ain't gonna inspire him to enter politics.
And there is part of the problem.
Yep, why would people of talent want to enter politics? We are at risk of having even more wall to wall careerist PPE graduates than we have today. It's depressing.
The interesting thing about this fan fiction is that it underlines all the things that were supposed to happen in the brexiter worldview but didn't. The key one - that we also saw in the German carmaker stuff - is that they apparently don't really believe that EU decision-making is a thing, and instead think everything is secretly dictated by Angela Merkel. Whereas in fact the Commission got behind the country most affected and made sure their needs came first, even though it was only little Ireland.
That was what I thought when I read it. And in a way they have to believe it. After all, if the EU actually was just a sham edifice for Germany to run Europe then we really should be leaving. Whereas if you concede the reality that it is an extremely effective way, indeed possibly the only way, to stop Germany running Europe then you have to conclude we should be both joining up and making damn sure it works.
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Lord Derby.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Lord Derby.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
Good spot. Hadn't thought of him.
If we are including Ministers rather than official cabinet ministers Lloyd George would equal that record - he had Bonar Law, Churchill, Neville Chamberlain and Stanley Baldwin in his government in 1917. However, of those only Law was actually in the cabinet.
Edit - both Grey and Lloyd George also had former PMs in their cabinet too (Goderich and Balfour).
The interesting thing about this fan fiction is that it underlines all the things that were supposed to happen in the brexiter worldview but didn't. The key one - that we also saw in the German carmaker stuff - is that they apparently don't really believe that EU decision-making is a thing, and instead think everything is secretly dictated by Angela Merkel. Whereas in fact the Commission got behind the country most affected and made sure their needs came first, even though it was only little Ireland.
That was what I thought when I read it. And in a way they have to believe it. After all, if the EU actually was just a sham edifice for Germany to run Europe then we really should be leaving. Whereas if you concede the reality that it is an extremely effective way, indeed possibly the only way, to stop Germany running Europe then you have to conclude we should be both joining up and making damn sure it works.
As usual the truth probably lies in between. We certainly saw very clearly in the 3rd episode the BBC's excellent 10 years of turmoil series that Merkel is far from adverse to cutting out the EU institutions and constitutional niceties when she thinks its necessary. I have little doubt that she had private discussions with May and that those discussions will have included her aspirations to have the UK rejoin sooner rather than later. I don't actually have any problem with it (the discussions, not the rejoining). I think its what leaders are for. But we don't have to follow them.
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Lord Derby.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
I was half expecting Morris Dancer to say it was Emperor Constantine.
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Lord Derby.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
I was half expecting Morris Dancer to say it was Emperor Constantine.
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Lord Derby.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
I was half expecting Morris Dancer to say it was Emperor Constantine.
Like the Minister for Magic he is never on the official list (although when Peter Mandelson was...never mind).
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
While I accept the premise that the media classes can be obsessed with political process, I was just about to post how surprised I was that Brexit hadn’t led the broadcast news agenda for several days, given the timescale now.
Partly that’s because Nothing Has Changed, but I think there’s been a change in outlook over, say, the Major v Bastards era, when every whispered word to John Sargeant in the Commons tearoom would have led the Six.
Progress away from that (less so in the papers, maybe) and towards working out what has substantively changed is welcome - but I’d caution against too much “people are bored with Brexit, lead with something else” if it lets in the fake news merchants more.
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
While I accept the premise that the media classes can be obsessed with political process, I was just about to post how surprised I was that Brexit hadn’t led the broadcast news agenda for several days, given the timescale now.
Partly that’s because Nothing Has Changed, but I think there’s been a change in outlook over, say, the Major v Bastards era, when every whispered word to John Sargeant in the Commons tearoom would have led the Six.
Progress away from that (less so in the papers, maybe) and towards working out what has substantively changed is welcome - but I’d caution against too much “people are bored with Brexit, lead with something else” if it lets in the fake news merchants more.
I think one of the reasons is that finally we seem to have an adult doing some negotiating. Mr Cox seems not to have the need for a presser, after he meets Mr Barnier for a coffee. I welcome it.
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
While I accept the premise that the media classes can be obsessed with political process, I was just about to post how surprised I was that Brexit hadn’t led the broadcast news agenda for several days, given the timescale now.
Partly that’s because Nothing Has Changed, but I think there’s been a change in outlook over, say, the Major v Bastards era, when every whispered word to John Sargeant in the Commons tearoom would have led the Six.
Progress away from that (less so in the papers, maybe) and towards working out what has substantively changed is welcome - but I’d caution against too much “people are bored with Brexit, lead with something else” if it lets in the fake news merchants more.
Fair points. I think the BBC emphasis has changed with Laura Kuenessberg and for the better.
I think one of the reasons is that finally we seem to have an adult doing some negotiating. Mr Cox seems not to have the need for a presser, after he meets Mr Barnier for a coffee. I welcome it.
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Lord Derby.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
Good spot. Hadn't thought of him.
If we are including Ministers rather than official cabinet ministers Lloyd George would equal that record - he had Bonar Law, Churchill, Neville Chamberlain and Stanley Baldwin in his government in 1917. However, of those only Law was actually in the cabinet.
Edit - both Grey and Lloyd George also had former PMs in their cabinet too (Goderich and Balfour).
I thought Neville Chamberlain refused to serve under Lloyd George?
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
While I accept the premise that the media classes can be obsessed with political process, I was just about to post how surprised I was that Brexit hadn’t led the broadcast news agenda for several days, given the timescale now.
Partly that’s because Nothing Has Changed, but I think there’s been a change in outlook over, say, the Major v Bastards era, when every whispered word to John Sargeant in the Commons tearoom would have led the Six.
Progress away from that (less so in the papers, maybe) and towards working out what has substantively changed is welcome - but I’d caution against too much “people are bored with Brexit, lead with something else” if it lets in the fake news merchants more.
I think one of the reasons is that finally we seem to have an adult doing some negotiating. Mr Cox seems not to have the need for a presser, after he meets Mr Barnier for a coffee. I welcome it.
A four hour dinner is interesting. If I were at the sharp end of a negotiation that was making little/no progress, the last thing I would be doing is spending four hours in their company over dinner. I'd be getting back to head office to have a lengthy debrief.
Not white smoke - but perhaps an indication that there is a deal to take back to Cabinet? Cancelling the press briefing was also a sign that there is a delicate position that needs to be explained, before the idiots in the media get a chance to go infantile, early.....
Comments
As you tend to get ten years into an economic cycle.
And we know what tends to follow ...
How can any sane Tory not see that we need to urgently clear out May and her talentless thrombi*?
*slow moving clots......
They *might* be used in support roles...
When Ms Dick was challenged on the matter during an LBC Radio interview on Tuesday, she said she found it “hard to imagine” asking for soldiers to be deployed on the streets.
But she added some military staff could perform support roles. She said: “I don’t exclude it, I really don’t....
The real point the police have been making is that they are under-resourced and understaffed.
As even Matt has twigged.
Also, whenever two or more crabs are stood in one place for more than 5 minutes he turns them into a fully fledged squadron complete with a barrage of media releases and an OF-4 to supervise them in order to give the impression that the RAF isn't shrinking fast.
(Us....)
Which of course it wouldn't be because he is a dick.
Mark Carney seemed more positive today - imagine how much easier it would be if the government planning had been organised properly.
They have a more middle of the road economic approach and they back a people's vote (although so does everyone but the Conservatives now) but issues that fall outside those would cause a lot of disagreement. Even foreign policy would cause some disagreement, the Labour right were some of the biggest supporters of the Iraq war and the Lib Dems some of the biggest opponents.
May and her circle are the cream* of England.
* rich, think and full of clots"
and a bit jammy too.....
Losing a carrier would destroy the career of everyone from 1SL down so they will NEVER be placed anywhere near a potentially hostile peer or near peer force never mind the People's Liberation Army Navy.
https://twitter.com/evolvepolitics/status/1102875557589630976
Any fool can see that what we need to do is bring back National Service.
http://batsby.blogspot.com/2019/03/duplicitous-leaders.html?m=1
That being said: I expect that it will make places like Putney, Richmond and Twickenham swing against the Conservative Party. There's nothing like being underwater on a £2m two bedroom apartment to make you cross with the government of the day.
Go on, read the whole article (Jo Bird, not Annie Hall). Have a look through all the things she was recorded saying. Regardless of what you might think the headline implies, she's been suspended because of the whole lot, not just the single rather feeble joke.
They have decided she is a bad jew and they know plenty of angry white people willing to join in the condemnation of the bad jew.
The JC doing the same thing themselves is of course perfectly acceptable... because they are the good jews.
Its bollocks.
However history says it doesn't actually hold 100% true as in 1993 John Major still managed to form a Tory government.
I thought this was an interesting thread, gone for the 2nd tweet as the other mentions racism and I can't really be bothered to continue/add to that argument right now but it looks at what could be a growing problem for the Conservatives winning with the changing electorate.
Either way, hopefully it is clear that your juxtaposition of the two headlines is wholly irrelevant, given the context provided. Her comments are also covered in detail by the Liverpool Echo, on the off chance you'll accept that as a more "balanced" source.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Some idiots claiming they are going around enforcing sharia law in a neighbourhood have no more official claim than some white thugs going around enforcing a 'natives' only policy.
The problem, which is the reason they started making these moves previously, is that base is shrinking. Even with both the Conservatives and the Republicans having similar success at maximising that section of electorate it will produce less returns as that section of the electorate shrinks. It will make the pushing out into the others sections of the electorate more difficult in future as well.
Can't say I know the statistics of British Muslims (only ones who can vote count) who would want that but you'd probably need to be closer to the country being 100% Muslim. I wouldn't be surprised if even then you wouldn't actually get a majority for it.
If the counterparties all believe in the same invisible superhero, they'll sometimes ask a religious court to be their arbitrator, and arbitrate with reference to the doctrine of their fellow invisible superhero believers.
As an example: the entire process of Jewish divorce is inherently sexist and should be banned on that basis alone. The fact we can get 'chained women' in the UK - where women are forced to remain in marriages because their husbands do not agree - is something that belongs in the early part of the last century, not this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agunah
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26446360
I'd feel much better about religions allowing their supporters to follow their own laws in such areas if those religions weren't inherently and nastily sexist. We've had a long-term task in this country towards equality: and that should mean equality for all, including in law.
It was brought up in a way that suggested it was something for non religious people to worry about being forced on them, which as per my reply isn't the case at all.
There are valid concerns about those who choose to live with these rules (although this wasn't the concern of the original mention) if there was a case for banning them that would be it. I worry most of the ill effects would exist anyway as the pressures you mention can still be applied but I don't have any attachment to them
There is equality for all under law though, they make rulings but these don't trump British law. People can choose not to live with these rulings. Just as there are many sexist things people can choose not to live with but do so because of various pressures.
Edit: If say divorce was one area these rules caused problems and very little in the way of solutions but other areas didn't I would be happy for that to be taken from them.
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
You're someone who accuses me of being an Islamaphobe (on no evidence whatsoever), and of being something to do with the NSDAP - just because you lose an argument.
As for the discussion: the problem is societal within those groups. There is a tendency for the more extremely religious someone is, for them to associate within those groups: to attend church, synagogue, mosque with other believers, to live in the same area, attend the same shops, schools etc. That is all good and well.
But it does mean that there can be considerable pressure put on them through family members and friends by unelected, often unqualified religious (male) officials - who may not know the UK law as well as the religious law. And since the majority are male, it's women who suffer most.
This is particularly true for women who are not allowed as much access to the wider world.
I don't know what the answer is. But the current situation is not equal, and it does not help integration or freedoms. We've spent a couple of centuries trying to disentangle our laws from religious ones, an ongoing process. That was done for a reason.
https://twitter.com/dannybarefoot/status/1102988677557510144?s=19
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
We can but hope.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
And there is part of the problem.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
If we are including Ministers rather than official cabinet ministers Lloyd George would equal that record - he had Bonar Law, Churchill, Neville Chamberlain and Stanley Baldwin in his government in 1917. However, of those only Law was actually in the cabinet.
Edit - both Grey and Lloyd George also had former PMs in their cabinet too (Goderich and Balfour).
Athena was a Geek goddess.
Have a good morning.
Partly that’s because Nothing Has Changed, but I think there’s been a change in outlook over, say, the Major v Bastards era, when every whispered word to John Sargeant in the Commons tearoom
would have led the Six.
Progress away from that (less so in the papers, maybe) and towards working out what has substantively changed is welcome - but I’d caution against too much “people are bored with Brexit, lead with something else” if it lets in the fake news merchants more.
Not white smoke - but perhaps an indication that there is a deal to take back to Cabinet? Cancelling the press briefing was also a sign that there is a delicate position that needs to be explained, before the idiots in the media get a chance to go infantile, early.....