Sorry. But no. Only a very badly educated person, or a moron, could fail to spot the anti-Semitism in that mural. It used ALL the tropes of Jew-hating Nazi cartoons: the hook noses, the flowing beards, the gloating faces, the strangely long hair, the conspiratorial table, it even had a floating symbol, only the artist switched the Star of David for some Illuminati wotsit.
When I first saw it I thought it was actually a hoax, or some kind of parody, I didn’t believe anyone could go out and paint that, on a wall, in East London.
So if you didn’t see the anti-Semitism you either have no education, or you are very dim, and there’s an end to it.
The other point is that the left are always incredibly keen to tell us that we should listen to the victims of prejudice when deciding whether something is racist, for example to ensure that we avoid using terms like 'coloured'. So you might naively have thought that they'd apply this principle to anti-semitism, and that therefore they'd go out of their way to educate themselves on the subject - especially a leader of the opposition who claims to have fought anti-semitism all his life. After all, they wouldn't want to be seen as self-serving hypocrites, would they?
Not sure what you mean by the left. I have never noticed that left wing people I know are anti-semitic. I have come across right wing people who are. And I was very happy to be educated about that trope that the mural used. I am afraid my interest in politics isn't deep enough to have found out about it myself but I know now. If that makes me a self serving hypocrite, well I've got a wife at home to love me.
EDIT: I have deleted this insult. It was unfair. You were irritating me.
I think you are just blinkered and not overly bright. But that describes most of humanity, and probably me as well.
I am now going to watch Outlander Season 4 (it’s weirdly good for trash TV) and drink overpriced wine. Sawadee kap.
He closes some strange examples. Christian Democracy has collapsed in Holland and Denmark, in favour of Populist right parties, and Social Democracy has collapsed in Holland and Germany, in favour of Populist left parties.
He writes well, but writes variations on the same piece time and time again. It's a little dull and one of the reasons that I enjoy the Economist less.
He's one of those people who leaves their home country and thinks that the best way to ingratiate themselves into their new environment is compare their home country unfavourably in every aspect when compared to their new host.
I don't think that's a fair comment. He was positively hysterical in his criticism of the German election campaign for its parochialism. Perhaps he should make the connection between that and avoiding "everyday crappiness".
The ERG and DUP are nutjobs and deserve to lose Brexit.
I expect there will be huge anger amongst more saner Tories against them and they really are taking a huge gamble.
Sammy Wilson saying voting the deal down will allow May to go back to Brussels and re-negotiate "from a position of strength..." Jesus wept.
He’s demented and if the DUP back no deal they’re in big trouble . A majority of DUP voters want a soft Brexit not no deal .
One would have thought the ONE thing they would be desperate to avoid is a GE. They would be lucky to hit 10 MPs again, and spectacularly lucky to hold the balance of power. That, however, seems to be what they are facilitating. But who I am to say?
What's the point of holding the balance of power if they get ignored on that which matters most to them anyway?
Whilst we're having a good time lampooning the ERG for not taking yes for an answer, can anyone explain the remainers on twitter who seem to value "parliamentary sovereignty" whilst at the same time wishing to put the decision "back to the people", when it was "parliamentary sovereignty" that gave the decision to the people in the first place ?
Sorry. But no. Only a very badly educated person, or a moron, could fail to spot the anti-Semitism in that mural. It used ALL the tropes of Jew-hating Nazi cartoons: the hook noses, the flowing beards, the gloating faces, the strangely long hair, the conspiratorial table, it even had a floating symbol, only the artist switched the Star of David for some Illuminati wotsit.
When I first saw it I thought it was actually a hoax, or some kind of parody, I didn’t believe anyone could go out and paint that, on a wall, in East London.
So if you didn’t see the anti-Semitism you either have no education, or you are very dim, and there’s an end to it.
The other point is that the left are always incredibly keen to tell us that we should listen to the victims of prejudice when deciding whether something is racist, for example to ensure that we avoid using terms like 'coloured'. So you might naively have thought that they'd apply this principle to anti-semitism, and that therefore they'd go out of their way to educate themselves on the subject - especially a leader of the opposition who claims to have fought anti-semitism all his life. After all, they wouldn't want to be seen as self-serving hypocrites, would they?
Not sure what you mean by the left. I have never noticed that left wing people I know are anti-semitic. I have come across right wing people who are. And I was very happy to be educated about that trope that the mural used. I am afraid my interest in politics isn't deep enough to have found out about it myself but I know now. If that makes me a self serving hypocrite, well I've got a wife at home to love me.
I mean those who support the Greens, the Labour Party, and to an extent the LibDems in the UK, i.e. 'the left' as usually defined in this country.
As for your hypocrisy, my comment wasn't aimed at you, but as it happens you've just reprimanded @SeantT for allegedly not doing enough research into why 'coloured' has been moved into the no-go list. I would put it to you gently that any accidental negative connotations of this once common word are utterly trivial compared with a mural directly echoing Nazi and other propaganda which was deliberately designed to stir up hatred and which contributed to a moral insanity unprecedented in history. Perhaps you should reflect on that, and on why you have never troubled to educate yourself on it, before accusing Sean of neglect.
I expect May to resign , and she will ask for an extension to allow a new leader time to reset the negotiations .
The problem is two months won’t be enough for that. The ERG and DUP might get behind a longer extension if a “true believer “ is in charge .
I hope so.
I have no sympathy for May .
She kicked all the hard decisions into the long grass , has failed to lead and has been very divisive. She’s done nothing to unite the country and the last straw was her disgraceful queue jumper comments aimed at fellow EU nationals . Good riddance to her.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Sorry. But no. Only a very badly educated person, or a moron, could fail to spot the anti-Semitism in that mural. It used ALL the tropes of Jew-hating Nazi cartoons: the hook noses, the flowing beards, the gloating faces, the strangely long hair, the conspiratorial table, it even had a floating symbol, only the artist switched the Star of David for some Illuminati wotsit.
When I first saw it I thought it was actually a hoax, or some kind of parody, I didn’t believe anyone could go out and paint that, on a wall, in East London.
So if you didn’t see the anti-Semitism you either have no education, or you are very dim, and there’s an end to it.
The other point is that the left are always incredibly keen to tell us that we should listen to the victims of prejudice when deciding whether something is racist, for example to ensure that we avoid using terms like 'coloured'. So you might naively have thought that they'd apply this principle to anti-semitism, and that therefore they'd go out of their way to educate themselves on the subject - especially a leader of the opposition who claims to have fought anti-semitism all his life. After all, they wouldn't want to be seen as self-serving hypocrites, would they?
Not sure what you mean by the left. I have never noticed that left wing people I know are anti-semitic. I have come across right wing people who are. And I was very happy to be educated about that trope that the mural used. I am afraid my interest in politics isn't deep enough to have found out about it myself but I know now. If that makes me a self serving hypocrite, well I've got a wife at home to love me.
I mean those who support the Greens, the Labour Party, and to an extent the LibDems in the UK, i.e. 'the left' as usually defined in this country.
As for your hypocrisy, my comment wasn't aimed at you, but as it happens you've just reprimanded @SeantT for allegedly not doing enough research into why 'coloured' has been moved into the no-go list. I would put it to you gently that any accidental negative connotations of this once common word are utterly trivial compared with a mural directly echoing Nazi and other propaganda which was deliberately designed to stir up hatred and which contributed to a moral insanity unprecedented in history. Perhaps you should reflect on that, and on why you have never troubled to educate yourself on it, before accusing Sean of neglect.
So you don't know either.
Is that supposed to be an answer to my point? Jeez.
Sorry. But no. Only a very badly educated person, or a moron, could fail to spot the anti-Semitism in that mural. It used ALL the tropes of Jew-hating Nazi cartoons: the hook noses, the flowing beards, the gloating faces, the strangely long hair, the conspiratorial table, it even had a floating symbol, only the artist switched the Star of David for some Illuminati wotsit.
When I first saw it I thought it was actually a hoax, or some kind of parody, I didn’t believe anyone could go out and paint that, on a wall, in East London.
So if you didn’t see the anti-Semitism you either have no education, or you are very dim, and there’s an end to it.
The other point is that the left are always incredibly keen to tell us that we should listen to the victims of prejudice when deciding whether something is racist, for example to ensure that we avoid using terms like 'coloured'. So you might naively have thought that they'd apply this principle to anti-semitism, and that therefore they'd go out of their way to educate themselves on the subject - especially a leader of the opposition who claims to have fought anti-semitism all his life. After all, they wouldn't want to be seen as self-serving hypocrites, would they?
Not sure what you mean by the left. I have never noticed that left wing people I know are anti-semitic. I have come across right wing people who are. And I was very happy to be educated about that trope that the mural used. I am afraid my interest in politics isn't deep enough to have found out about it myself but I know now. If that makes me a self serving hypocrite, well I've got a wife at home to love me.
The mural is not necessarily obvious at first glance at all. Tbh, when it first popped up a year ago, I didn't notice the Monopoly board and I thought it was just meant to be showing Jewish people in hot-pants (even that it was a spoof of that Moneysupermarket advert, lol) which seemed like a new antisemitic trope to me.
I remember even @DavidL (no fan of Corbyn) saying he wouldn't have known what it was depicting before it was explained to him.
Sorry. But no. Only a very badly educated person, or a moron, could fail to spot the anti-Semitism in that mural. It used ALL the tropes of Jew-hating Nazi cartoons: the hook noses, the flowing beards, the gloating faces, the strangely long hair, the conspiratorial table, it even had a floating symbol, only the artist switched the Star of David for some Illuminati wotsit.
When I first saw it I thought it was actually a hoax, or some kind of parody, I didn’t believe anyone could go out and paint that, on a wall, in East London.
So if you didn’t see the anti-Semitism you either have no education, or you are very dim, and there’s an end to it.
The other point is that the left are always incredibly keen to tell us that we should listen to the victims of prejudice when deciding whether something is racist, for example to ensure that we avoid using terms like 'coloured'. So you might naively have thought that they'd apply this principle to anti-semitism, and that therefore they'd go out of their way to educate themselves on the subject - especially a leader of the opposition who claims to have fought anti-semitism all his life. After all, they wouldn't want to be seen as self-serving hypocrites, would they?
Not sure what you mean by the left. I have never noticed that left wing people I know are anti-semitic. I have come across right wing people who are. And I was very happy to be educated about that trope that the mural used. I am afraid my interest in politics isn't deep enough to have found out about it myself but I know now. If that makes me a self serving hypocrite, well I've got a wife at home to love me.
I mean those who support the Greens, the Labour Party, and to an extent the LibDems in the UK, i.e. 'the left' as usually defined in this country.
As for your hypocrisy, my comment wasn't aimed at you, but as it happens you've just reprimanded @SeantT for allegedly not doing enough research into why 'coloured' has been moved into the no-go list. I would put it to you gently that any accidental negative connotations of this once common word are utterly trivial compared with a mural directly echoing Nazi and other propaganda which was deliberately designed to stir up hatred and which contributed to a moral insanity unprecedented in history. Perhaps you should reflect on that, and on why you have never troubled to educate yourself on it, before accusing Sean of neglect.
So you don't know either.
Nor me, so this is a special day for me because you clearly do know, and are going to tell us.
Sorry. But no. Only a very badly educated person, or a moron, could fail to spot the anti-Semitism in that mural. It used ALL the tropes of Jew-hating Nazi cartoons: the hook noses, the flowing beards, the gloating faces, the strangely long hair, the conspiratorial table, it even had a floating symbol, only the artist switched the Star of David for some Illuminati wotsit.
When I first saw it I thought it was actually a hoax, or some kind of parody, I didn’t believe anyone could go out and paint that, on a wall, in East London.
So if you didn’t see the anti-Semitism you either have no education, or you are very dim, and there’s an end to it.
The other point is that the left are always incredibly keen to tell us that we should listen to the victims of prejudice when deciding whether something is racist, for example to ensure that we avoid using terms like 'coloured'. So you might naively have thought that they'd apply this principle to anti-semitism, and that therefore they'd go out of their way to educate themselves on the subject - especially a leader of the opposition who claims to have fought anti-semitism all his life. After all, they wouldn't want to be seen as self-serving hypocrites, would they?
Not sure what you mean by the left. I have never noticed that left wing people I know are anti-semitic. I have come across right wing people who are. And I was very happy to be educated about that trope that the mural used. I am afraid my interest in politics isn't deep enough to have found out about it myself but I know now. If that makes me a self serving hypocrite, well I've got a wife at home to love me.
The mural is not necessarily obvious at first glance at all. Tbh, when it first popped up a year ago, I didn't notice the Monopoly board and I thought it was just meant to be showing Jewish people in hot-pants (even that it was a spoof of that Moneysupermarket advert, lol) which seemed like a new antisemitic trope to me.
I remember even @DavidL (no fan of Corbyn) saying he wouldn't have known what it was depicting before it was explained to him.
Sorry. But no. Only a very badly educated person, or a moron, could fail to spot the anti-Semitism in that mural. It used ALL the tropes of Jew-hating Nazi cartoons: the hook noses, the flowing beards, the gloating faces, the strangely long hair, the conspiratorial table, it even had a floating symbol, only the artist switched the Star of David for some Illuminati wotsit.
When I first saw it I thought it was actually a hoax, or some kind of parody, I didn’t believe anyone could go out and paint that, on a wall, in East London.
So if you didn’t see the anti-Semitism you either have no education, or you are very dim, and there’s an end to it.
The other point is that the left are always incredibly keen to tell us that we should listen to the victims of prejudice when deciding whether something is racist, for example to ensure that we avoid using terms like 'coloured'. So you might naively have thought that they'd apply this principle to anti-semitism, and that therefore they'd go out of their way to educate themselves on the subject - especially a leader of the opposition who claims to have fought anti-semitism all his life. After all, they wouldn't want to be seen as self-serving hypocrites, would they?
Not sure what you mean by the left. I have never noticed that left wing people I know are anti-semitic. I have come across right wing people who are. And I was very happy to be educated about that trope that the mural used. I am afraid my interest in politics isn't deep enough to have found out about it myself but I know now. If that makes me a self serving hypocrite, well I've got a wife at home to love me.
I mean those who support the Greens, the Labour Party, and to an extent the LibDems in the UK, i.e. 'the left' as usually defined in this country.
As for your hypocrisy, my comment wasn't aimed at you, but as it happens you've just reprimanded @SeantT for allegedly not doing enough research into why 'coloured' has been moved into the no-go list. I would put it to you gently that any accidental negative connotations of this once common word are utterly trivial compared with a mural directly echoing Nazi and other propaganda which was deliberately designed to stir up hatred and which contributed to a moral insanity unprecedented in history. Perhaps you should reflect on that, and on why you have never troubled to educate yourself on it, before accusing Sean of neglect.
So you don't know either.
Nor me, so this is a special day for me because you clearly do know, and are going to tell us.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
It reduces offence caused per syllable to an acceptable level?
My initial reaction was to view the mural as anti-masonic - but anti-masonry and anti-Semitism frequently go hand in hand. However, the painter was very honest about his anti-Jewish intentions.
I'd say 2 things feed AS on the Left.
1. Belief that the world is run by a capitalist cabal of Jews. 2. Belief that Israel's oppression of the Palestinians amounts to a racist atrocity and that this reflects badly on Jews generally because half of them live in Israel and most of the other half live in the US and strongly support Israeli policy in this regard.
The 1st is 100% softhead conspiracy theory. The 2nd is IMO a respectable assertion (although I do not really buy it myself).
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
Sorry. But no. Only a very badly educated person, or a moron, could fail to spot the anti-Semitism in that mural. It used ALL the tropes of Jew-hating Nazi cartoons: the hook noses, the flowing beards, the gloating faces, the strangely long hair, the conspiratorial table, it even had a floating symbol, only the artist switched the Star of David for some Illuminati wotsit.
When I first saw it I thought it was actually a hoax, or some kind of parody, I didn’t believe anyone could go out and paint that, on a wall, in East London.
So if you didn’t see the anti-Semitism you either have no education, or you are very dim, and there’s an end to it.
The other point is that the left are always incredibly keen to tell us that we should listen to the victims of prejudice when deciding whether something is racist, for example to ensure that we avoid using terms like 'coloured'. So you might naively have thought that they'd apply this principle to anti-semitism, and that therefore they'd go out of their way to educate themselves on the subject - especially a leader of the opposition who claims to have fought anti-semitism all his life. After all, they wouldn't want to be seen as self-serving hypocrites, would they?
Not sure what you mean by the left. I have never noticed that left wing people I know are anti-semitic. I have come across right wing people who are. And I was very happy to be educated about that trope that the mural used. I am afraid my interest in politics isn't deep enough to have found out about it myself but I know now. If that makes me a self serving hypocrite, well I've got a wife at home to love me.
The mural is not necessarily obvious at first glance at all. Tbh, when it first popped up a year ago, I didn't notice the Monopoly board and I thought it was just meant to be showing Jewish people in hot-pants (even that it was a spoof of that Moneysupermarket advert, lol) which seemed like a new antisemitic trope to me.
I remember even @DavidL (no fan of Corbyn) saying he wouldn't have known what it was depicting before it was explained to him.
But you saw it was showing Jewish people ...
Well, yes, because I only became aware of it when people were tweeting about "Corbyn supporting an antisemitic mural".
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
I think with Tim Loughton we're up to around 220, with Zac and possibly JRM undecided (although it didn't sound to me as though JRM was going to come round).
The ERG and DUP are nutjobs and deserve to lose Brexit.
I expect there will be huge anger amongst more saner Tories against them and they really are taking a huge gamble.
Sammy Wilson saying voting the deal down will allow May to go back to Brussels and re-negotiate "from a position of strength..." Jesus wept.
He’s demented and if the DUP back no deal they’re in big trouble . A majority of DUP voters want a soft Brexit not no deal .
One would have thought the ONE thing they would be desperate to avoid is a GE. They would be lucky to hit 10 MPs again, and spectacularly lucky to hold the balance of power. That, however, seems to be what they are facilitating. But who I am to say?
What's the point of holding the balance of power if they get ignored on that which matters most to them anyway?
They kept May in Downing Street in 2017. They kept her there in the VONC in January. If they are being ignored, well, there is an obvious solution.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
God knows, I can’t explain the logic, but that is the rationale I have read in the past. I agree it is bonkers.
I genuinely think the identitarian Left keeps changing the accepted lexicon of race-words SIMPLY to show their superior anti-racism, and as a means of trapping their perceived enemies.
Top tip: all these aircraft being grounded is good for airlines. It reduces system capacity, and therefore pushes up prices.
Hmm. So if all planes were grounded, the airlines would make a fortune!
Indeed this is not like 1970s OPEC controlling oil prices,.it could be good for those airlines who don't have any grounded planes (fewer competitor planes) but bad for those airlines that do.
Though given the numbers involved its surely going to be only marginally beneficial to those it assists while potentially very expensive to it hurts.
Well, well. Just looked at the Guardian site and this popped up 'US federal prosecutors have charged dozens of people in a years-old $25m scheme to help wealthy Americans buy their children’s way into elite universities including Yale, Georgetown and Stanford, and the University of Southern California.'
Don't American Universities have whole departments set up to facilitate this kind of thing? Is this a surprise?
I expect May to resign , and she will ask for an extension to allow a new leader time to reset the negotiations .
The problem is two months won’t be enough for that. The ERG and DUP might get behind a longer extension if a “true believer “ is in charge .
I hope so.
I have no sympathy for May . She kicked all the hard decisions into the long grass , has failed to lead and has been very divisive. She’s done nothing to unite the country and the last straw was her disgraceful queue jumper comments aimed at fellow EU nationals . Good riddance to her.
I genuinely think the identitarian Left keeps changing the accepted lexicon of race-words SIMPLY to show their superior anti-racism, and as a means of trapping their perceived enemies.
Well, well. Just looked at the Guardian site and this popped up 'US federal prosecutors have charged dozens of people in a years-old $25m scheme to help wealthy Americans buy their children’s way into elite universities including Yale, Georgetown and Stanford, and the University of Southern California.'
Don't American Universities have whole departments set up to facilitate this kind of thing? Is this a surprise?
LOL. I thought they had to have some modicum of academic ability. Bit like 'Cheat' on ITV at the moment.
I expect May to resign , and she will ask for an extension to allow a new leader time to reset the negotiations .
The problem is two months won’t be enough for that. The ERG and DUP might get behind a longer extension if a “true believer “ is in charge .
I hope so.
I have no sympathy for May . She kicked all the hard decisions into the long grass , has failed to lead and has been very divisive. She’s done nothing to unite the country and the last straw was her disgraceful queue jumper comments aimed at fellow EU nationals . Good riddance to her.
Has she gone at last?
As good as. Cox, unintentionally I'm sure as he retained professional integrity, has scuppered her.
I've been out for an hour or so, what's the latest tally on switchers? I've picked up on Greg Hands and Scott Mann, any others confirmed?
I've been keeping tabs in comments on this thread, so if you search my name and ignore my ding-dong with @Recidivist you'll find most of them. May not be complete.
I've been out for an hour or so, what's the latest tally on switchers? I've picked up on Greg Hands and Scott Mann, any others confirmed?
I've been keeping tabs in comments on this thread, so if you search my name and ignore my ding-dong with @Recidivist you'll find most of them. May not be complete.
14 Tories per Guido. Plus it looks like Caroline Flint will be switching too.
I've been out for an hour or so, what's the latest tally on switchers? I've picked up on Greg Hands and Scott Mann, any others confirmed?
I've been keeping tabs in comments on this thread, so if you search my name and ignore my ding-dong with @Recidivist you'll find most of them. May not be complete.
14 Tories per Guido. Plus it looks like Caroline Flint will be switching too.
Watching NTV news in Germany (well I'm in Sofia but there are more Germans in the lounge than me) and Brexit is the main news story. As a country we look like a bunch of incompetent clowns...
One of my sons, who travels the Asia-Pacific area as an exporter says that's how we're coming across there. Kevin Rudds' remarks the other day remarks couldn't be construed as complimentary either, even by Australian standards.
Brexit is a shambolic festival of democratic chaos BUT I am with dots on this, at least we have a democratic festival, however chaotic.
Other nations simply abjured their awkward referendum results, or overruled them. We are going through embarrassing paroxysms BECAUSE we are an ancient democracy, and we see the people’s will as important. If people want to laugh and point from foreign parts, fuck ‘em. We are British and we take these things very seriously. Hence the anarchy. It would be so much easier if we could all be like Dominic Grieve, or China, and ignore the proles.
Alternatively Westminster/Whitehall is a basket case, it really represents only itself, has been unfit for purpose for years and has been instrumental in the century long decline of the UK.
Brexit is merely a Christmas special in a long series of dysfunction.
Politicians follow the people. You can build great enterprises based on a sense of national mission *but* (1) that sense of mission and the kind of sacrifices it demands will invariably end up trampling over others in the process, and (2) in time, the rigour and discipline needed to build the enterprise will drift, in favour of comfort and luxury.
Britain built a great enterprise in the empire but even leaving aside the moral questions associated with it, the public fell out of love with the mission - and nothing has ever really replaced it (and how can you really replace 'running the world'?). You can blame Westminster and Whitehall but there's never since been the kind of national story around which to build a new narrative.
As an aside, there are certainly Eurocrats who truly believe in the European project just as much as empire-builders of old. Their mistake is in failing to inspire the kind of national mission that drove nations from Athens and Rome through to post-WW2 America or perhaps China today.
I'm always confused about the role of auto-pilot on long-haul flights. You hear people say the plane is on auto-pilot for the entire flight, and so you ask whether this includes take-off and landing, and half the time the reply is "oh no, not for takeoff and landing", which is all a bit confusing. I still don't know what the correct answer is.
Takeoff is always manual, with AP usually engaged at 400’ or so once the gear is up and climbing away normally. Auto landings are possible, but only usually done in foggy conditions. Pilots need to be in current practice for autolands, and both the plane and airport need to be equipped appropriately. More usually the AP is disconnected at 1000’ or 500’, depending on operator and conditions.
Most airlines now discourage pilots from flying manually, as it saves time and money to let the computer do it. A number of accidents in recent years have been attributed, by complete co-incidence, to pilots being insufficiently skilled at hand flying, in situations where the AP quit working due to a minor failure of some system or another.
I've been out for an hour or so, what's the latest tally on switchers? I've picked up on Greg Hands and Scott Mann, any others confirmed?
I've been keeping tabs in comments on this thread, so if you search my name and ignore my ding-dong with @Recidivist you'll find most of them. May not be complete.
14 Tories per Guido. Plus it looks like Caroline Flint will be switching too.
Sorry. But no. Only a very badly educated person, or a moron, could fail to spot the anti-Semitism in that mural. It used ALL the tropes of Jew-hating Nazi cartoons: the hook noses, the flowing beards, the gloating faces, the strangely long hair, the conspiratorial table, it even had a floating symbol, only the artist switched the Star of David for some Illuminati wotsit.
When I first saw it I thought it was actually a hoax, or some kind of parody, I didn’t believe anyone could go out and paint that, on a wall, in East London.
So if you didn’t see the anti-Semitism you either have no education, or you are very dim, and there’s an end to it.
The other point is that the left are always incredibly keen to tell us that we should listen to the victims of prejudice when deciding whether something is racist, for example to ensure that we avoid using terms like 'coloured'. So you might naively have thought that they'd apply this principle to anti-semitism, and that therefore they'd go out of their way to educate themselves on the subject - especially a leader of the opposition who claims to have fought anti-semitism all his life. After all, they wouldn't want to be seen as self-serving hypocrites, would they?
Not sure what you mean by the left. I have never noticed that left wing people I know are anti-semitic. I have come across right wing people who are. And I was very happy to be educated about that trope that the mural used. I am afraid my interest in politics isn't deep enough to have found out about it myself but I know now. If that makes me a self serving hypocrite, well I've got a wife at home to love me.
The mural is not necessarily obvious at first glance at all. Tbh, when it first popped up a year ago, I didn't notice the Monopoly board and I thought it was just meant to be showing Jewish people in hot-pants (even that it was a spoof of that Moneysupermarket advert, lol) which seemed like a new antisemitic trope to me.
I remember even @DavidL (no fan of Corbyn) saying he wouldn't have known what it was depicting before it was explained to him.
Like @SeanF my first instinct was that it was that it was focused on Masons rather than Jews although it was clear that at least some of the Masons had Jewish characteristics. It used imagery that I have only seen in those absurd Dan Brown books and the rather better ones by Umberto Eco.
I did not find it as obvious as @SeanT thinks it is but then I have not spent the last 40 years of my life obsessing about the anti-Zionist cause. I think Corbyn has rather less excuse for not picking up on it.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, a lot of words are considered offensive not because of their literal meaning, but because of the way they have been used in the past.
A example is the abbreviation of words specifying nation or race. "Brit" isn't considered offensive, but "Yid" and "Paki" often are.
So now – literally just now – been told by a supplier in Latvia that he can't ship a major order, because of Brexit (it won't get here before 29 March). So, our business now being directly affected by this fucking joke of a policy –the most stupid idea ever to emerge in Britain in the post-war period.
Nope. That's absolutely true. It doesn't surprise me that you don't take it seriously.
So true there's no real stories of this happening on the news or with media like Channel 4 or the Grauniad that would breathlessly report it. Just from diehard anonymous Remainers posting anonymous and unsubstantiated comments.
Stop being a dick. I am giving you an honest anecdote from my supplier – today.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
It was its use by the South African apartheid regime that made it unacceptable
So now – literally just now – been told by a supplier in Latvia that he can't ship a major order, because of Brexit (it won't get here before 29 March). So, our business now being directly affected by this fucking joke of a policy –the most stupid idea ever to emerge in Britain in the post-war period.
Nope. That's absolutely true. It doesn't surprise me that you don't take it seriously.
So true there's no real stories of this happening on the news or with media like Channel 4 or the Grauniad that would breathlessly report it. Just from diehard anonymous Remainers posting anonymous and unsubstantiated comments.
Stop being a dick. I am giving you an honest anecdote from my supplier – today.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, a lot of words are considered offensive not because of their literal meaning, but because of the way they have been used in the past.
A example is the abbreviation of words specifying nation or race. "Brit" isn't considered offensive, but "Yid" and "Paki" often are.
Whats with the pronounciation I always hear on the radio of "Parkistan" or "Pakistarn" on the radio. It's almost never "Parkistarn" and I haven't yet heard "Pakistan" ! If you're going to use rp "a", at least be consistent !
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
The NF used to talk about "rule by the coloureds", so I imagine that's when the word started changing from neutral to offensive.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
Isn't the more basic point that it is widely recognised to be offensive to a whole community(rather than just one or two individuals taking offense) and as such any decent person who wasn't actually setting out to offend, would avoid using it.
As someone pointed out last week this seems to me to be more of a basic principle of good manners.
I think Davis, Boris and Raab will all get on board. Ben Bradley is a straw in the wind from that group.
I don't think they'll all jump the same way. There's a gap in the market for a leader from the bitter-enders and from the concession-closers. Both roles need filling.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
"Coloured" was the term used in South Africa and (more importantly) in segregation-era America. It carries very negative connotations. "People of Colour" was created to be as inclusive as possible while recognising those historical wrongs. It's a far broader term than "black".
Splendidly thick MP Guto Bebb will be voting against the WA because it doesn't deal with future arrangements.
It's tragic. Who dresses him in the morning?
Maybe he's onto something. An Article 50 extension long enough to negotiate the future relationship, so it can be agreed as a single package, with no backstop required. Not sure the EU would go for it given their inflexibility on phasing in the first place, but in a world of least worst options, it's not the maddest thing I've ever heard.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
Isn't the more basic point that it is widely recognised to be offensive to a whole community(rather than just one or two individuals taking offense) and as such any decent person who wasn't actually setting out to offend, would avoid using it.
As someone pointed out last week this seems to me to be more of a basic principle of good manners.
I agree that it's a matter of good manners usually not to describe people in terms they don't like.
But, it's also good manners for the latter not to take offence where it is not intended.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
Isn't the more basic point that it is widely recognised to be offensive to a whole community(rather than just one or two individuals taking offense) and as such any decent person who wasn't actually setting out to offend, would avoid using it.
As someone pointed out last week this seems to me to be more of a basic principle of good manners.
Equally when the person using it is so obviously intent on being constructive and sympathetic, good manners requires attention to her intention rather then her actual words.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
It was its use by the South African apartheid regime that made it unacceptable
But they used 'black and 'white' as well. We're still allowed to use those I believe, so my confusion remains.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
Isn't the more basic point that it is widely recognised to be offensive to a whole community(rather than just one or two individuals taking offense) and as such any decent person who wasn't actually setting out to offend, would avoid using it.
As someone pointed out last week this seems to me to be more of a basic principle of good manners.
I agree that it's a matter of good manners usually not to describe people in terms they don't like.
But, it's also good manners for the latter not to take offence where it is not intended.
Yep sorry I wasn't getting into the Anti-semite/coloured race for the bottom as such. Just making the point that if people just displayed basic good manners a lot of this would go away.
Of course if one wants to be offensive then one should go for it with both barrels.
So now – literally just now – been told by a supplier in Latvia that he can't ship a major order, because of Brexit (it won't get here before 29 March). So, our business now being directly affected by this fucking joke of a policy –the most stupid idea ever to emerge in Britain in the post-war period.
Nope. That's absolutely true. It doesn't surprise me that you don't take it seriously.
So true there's no real stories of this happening on the news or with media like Channel 4 or the Grauniad that would breathlessly report it. Just from diehard anonymous Remainers posting anonymous and unsubstantiated comments.
Stop being a dick. I am giving you an honest anecdote from my supplier – today.
If you don't me asking, what is the order?
Sorry, I never give biographical details out on this site.
'Women of Colour' but far less frequently 'Men of Colour', I have noticed. It's the linguistic equivalent of opening the car door.
Why is 'coloured person' offensive? It's the 'white is default' point already made and there is also another aspect. It dates from when 'black' was seen as being something to be slightly ashamed of, like being illegitimate or something, and hence people would say 'coloured' in this kind of mealy mouthed whispery way, to avoid giving what they thought might be offence. My old mum was still doing it even a couple of years back and I had to give her quite a bollocking to get her to stop it and just say black.
Oh and addendum, has anybody else noticed how orientals appear on the whole to be far less sensitive to this sort of stuff - both as directed against them and in terms of what they dish out?
I've been out for an hour or so, what's the latest tally on switchers? I've picked up on Greg Hands and Scott Mann, any others confirmed?
Penning Lamont Pritchard Gray Halfon Bradley Evans Vickers Hands Syms Mann Thomas Blackman Offord Loughton Watling Baron Mercer
That's helpful. More than I expected at this stage, to be candid. My working assumption would be to double this number.
I think the non-headbangers are deciding that half a loaf is better than none.
Yes, but it won't be enough. I think we'd need to break 300 to even consider MV3. I don't see us getting anywhere near that. The only way this now gets through is mass Labour abstentions.
Watching NTV news in Germany (well I'm in Sofia but there are more Germans in the lounge than me) and Brexit is the main news story. As a country we look like a bunch of incompetent clowns...
One of my sons, who travels the Asia-Pacific area as an exporter says that's how we're coming across there. Kevin Rudds' remarks the other day remarks couldn't be construed as complimentary either, even by Australian standards.
Brexit we could all be like Dominic Grieve, or China, and ignore the proles.
Alternatively eries of dysfunction.
Politicians follow the people. You can build great enterprises based on a sense of national mission *but* (1) that sense of mission and the kind of sacrifices it demands will invariably end up trampling over others in the process, and (2) in time, the rigour and discipline needed to build the enterprise will drift, in favour of comfort and luxury.
Britain built a great enterprise in the empire but even leaving aside the moral questions associated with it, the public fell out of love with the mission - and nothing has ever really replaced it (and how can you really replace 'running the world'?). You can blame Westminster and Whitehall but there's never since been the kind of national story around which to build a new narrative.
As an aside, there are certainly Eurocrats who truly believe in the European project just as much as empire-builders of old. Their mistake is in failing to inspire the kind of national mission that drove nations from Athens and Rome through to post-WW2 America or perhaps China today.
Astute. I also think Britain has been a victim of her own success. The world speaks English. It plays English sports. It wants English law. It is run by English speaking people, mainly in America. The greatest companies are all Anglophone. The internet, the biggest leap in human society since the industrial revolution, is an English speaking thing. Most of the world’s great new cities were founded by the Brits - from Sydney to Singapore to Hong Kong. And so on and so forth.
For Britain there is a sense of Mission Accomplished. We changed the world to suit ourselves. We got rich. We were never conquered. This has maybe bred a fatal complacency that other, “smaller”, more challenged cultures and nations - France, Russia, Japan, Germany - do not suffer. For them there is always an overweening other: the capitalist, Anglo-American, English speaking world. Maybe this is why they sometimes appear more coherent about their identity than us. Though they also have their own demons, natch,
Just a late night guess. And now, definitely, Netflix and wine. KapKap.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
It was its use by the South African apartheid regime that made it unacceptable
Ah. But I still don't see how "of colour" saves the day.
Splendidly thick MP Guto Bebb will be voting against the WA because it doesn't deal with future arrangements.
It's tragic. Who dresses him in the morning?
Maybe he's onto something. An Article 50 extension long enough to negotiate the future relationship, so it can be agreed as a single package, with no backstop required. Not sure the EU would go for it given their inflexibility on phasing in the first place, but in a world of least worst options, it's not the maddest thing I've ever heard.
The response to the absurd phasing of the EU should either have been to tell them to get lost or to fix the WA 18 months ago so that we had the remaining period of the 2 years to sort out the longer term arrangement. Wasting 2 years on the settling of accounts has been absurd.
But now, I don't think so. If withdrawal is extended beyond the end of May (no pun intended) it simply will not happen.
Yes, I know why it is offensive. It implies whiteness is the default and normal setting. Plus it was used during the era of everyday racism. Yawn. Next question.
Ah, perhaps you can help me. I've heard this explanation before, but it makes no sense. Even if you take the irrational view that 'coloured woman' implies that the default woman is white, why on earth is 'woman of colour' any more acceptable? I'm sure people who read the Guardian more avidly than me must know the answer, but I've never found it.
Because whether a word is a slur is based on usage, not something you can derive purely from etymology.
But what usage? Racists have never said "coloured woman," they say "n-gg-r" - unless you can point us to some counter examples. And anyway "of colour" is close enough to "coloured" that if one is offensive they both are.
Isn't the more basic point that it is widely recognised to be offensive to a whole community(rather than just one or two individuals taking offense) and as such any decent person who wasn't actually setting out to offend, would avoid using it.
As someone pointed out last week this seems to me to be more of a basic principle of good manners.
Spot on. This really is a tedious discussion. Grown men like SeanT and RichardN really ought to be able to manage this. I'm surprised they find it such a struggle.
'Women of Colour' but far less frequently 'Men of Colour', I have noticed. It's the linguistic equivalent of opening the car door.
Why is 'coloured person' offensive? It's the 'white is default' point already made and there is also another aspect. It dates from when 'black' was seen as being something to be slightly ashamed of, like being illegitimate or something, and hence people would say 'coloured' in this kind of mealy mouthed whispery way, to avoid giving what they thought might be offence. My old mum was still doing it even a couple of years back and I had to give her quite a bollocking to get her to stop it and just say black.
Oh and addendum, has anybody else noticed how orientals appear on the whole to be far less sensitive to this sort of stuff - both as directed against them and in terms of what they dish out?
The Chinese know themselves to be superior to all other peoples. Why should the eagle care what the ant says about it?
Comments
I think you are just blinkered and not overly bright. But that describes most of humanity, and probably me as well.
I am now going to watch Outlander Season 4 (it’s weirdly good for trash TV) and drink overpriced wine. Sawadee kap.
She kicked all the hard decisions into the long grass , has failed to lead and has been very divisive. She’s done nothing to unite the country and the last straw was her disgraceful queue jumper comments aimed at fellow EU nationals . Good riddance to her.
I remember even @DavidL (no fan of Corbyn) saying he wouldn't have known what it was depicting before it was explained to him.
You have the floor.
1. Belief that the world is run by a capitalist cabal of Jews. 2. Belief that Israel's oppression of the Palestinians amounts to a racist atrocity and that this reflects badly on Jews generally because half of them live in Israel and most of the other half live in the US and strongly support Israeli policy in this regard.
The 1st is 100% softhead conspiracy theory. The 2nd is IMO a respectable assertion (although I do not really buy it myself).
https://twitter.com/TheCEOinspace/status/1105405634214801409
I genuinely think the identitarian Left keeps changing the accepted lexicon of race-words SIMPLY to show their superior anti-racism, and as a means of trapping their perceived enemies.
Though given the numbers involved its surely going to be only marginally beneficial to those it assists while potentially very expensive to it hurts.
Sounds like an apt description.
One can be pro- or anti- the WA, but opposing it for not doing something it isn't meant to do is just daft.
I would expect MPs like Hugo Swire, Grant Shapps, Stephen McParland, Matthew Offord to end up voting in favour of the WA..
Lamont
Pritchard
Gray
Halfon
Bradley
Evans
Vickers
Hands
Syms
Mann
Thomas
Blackman
Offord
Loughton
Watling
Baron
Mercer
https://order-order.com/2019/03/12/mps-switching-back-deal/
Britain built a great enterprise in the empire but even leaving aside the moral questions associated with it, the public fell out of love with the mission - and nothing has ever really replaced it (and how can you really replace 'running the world'?). You can blame Westminster and Whitehall but there's never since been the kind of national story around which to build a new narrative.
As an aside, there are certainly Eurocrats who truly believe in the European project just as much as empire-builders of old. Their mistake is in failing to inspire the kind of national mission that drove nations from Athens and Rome through to post-WW2 America or perhaps China today.
TGOHF last night – not a post that has aged well.
Most airlines now discourage pilots from flying manually, as it saves time and money to let the computer do it. A number of accidents in recent years have been attributed, by complete co-incidence, to pilots being insufficiently skilled at hand flying, in situations where the AP quit working due to a minor failure of some system or another.
Crispin Blunt peddling the article 24 GATT section of the WTO. He’s been told a hundred times it won’t apply.
I did not find it as obvious as @SeanT thinks it is but then I have not spent the last 40 years of my life obsessing about the anti-Zionist cause. I think Corbyn has rather less excuse for not picking up on it.
A example is the abbreviation of words specifying nation or race. "Brit" isn't considered offensive, but "Yid" and "Paki" often are.
Conservatives 10 points ahead of Labour, as PM's deal heads for parliamentary vote
https://uk.kantar.com/public-opinion/politics/2019/conservatives-10-points-ahead-of-labour-as-pms-deal-heads-for-parliamentary-vote/
https://twitter.com/GeorgiaZemoreyR/status/1105503207680290816?s=19
If you're going to use rp "a", at least be consistent !
As I pointed out before, the Stop Boris faction lost 3 votes. I'm sure Boris won't worry unduly if a few more defect....
As someone pointed out last week this seems to me to be more of a basic principle of good manners.
Current Betfair prices:
230-239 5.9
240-249 5.6
But, it's also good manners for the latter not to take offence where it is not intended.
Of course if one wants to be offensive then one should go for it with both barrels.
Why is 'coloured person' offensive? It's the 'white is default' point already made and there is also another aspect. It dates from when 'black' was seen as being something to be slightly ashamed of, like being illegitimate or something, and hence people would say 'coloured' in this kind of mealy mouthed whispery way, to avoid giving what they thought might be offence. My old mum was still doing it even a couple of years back and I had to give her quite a bollocking to get her to stop it and just say black.
Oh and addendum, has anybody else noticed how orientals appear on the whole to be far less sensitive to this sort of stuff - both as directed against them and in terms of what they dish out?
For Britain there is a sense of Mission Accomplished. We changed the world to suit ourselves. We got rich. We were never conquered. This has maybe bred a fatal complacency that other, “smaller”, more challenged cultures and nations - France, Russia, Japan, Germany - do not suffer. For them there is always an overweening other: the capitalist, Anglo-American, English speaking world. Maybe this is why they sometimes appear more coherent about their identity than us. Though they also have their own demons, natch,
Just a late night guess. And now, definitely, Netflix and wine. KapKap.
Personally I think that's an underestimate based on what we already know. I agree with @Sandpit that it's looking like a total 240ish Ayes.
https://twitter.com/AmIRightSir/status/1105514033086689280
But now, I don't think so. If withdrawal is extended beyond the end of May (no pun intended) it simply will not happen.