That doesn’t mean that more than 19% are not going to get rather pissed off at their ancestral language being so described.
It has been pointed out that more people in Wales speak Polish than Welsh, so maybe Polish should be on the roadsigns.
Of course, that was pre-Brexit. Maybe the Poles have "... all gone back where they came from... " as per alt-right policy, so Boston, Lincs, must be packed
Comment from an Oswestry born and therefore Welsh speaking friend of mine, doing a Welsh speech to introduce a concert in Brecon:
It’s the same Boris Johnson who described Africans as “ Picanninnies” with “watermelon smiles”. Indeed the same Boris Johnson who described Muslim women as looking like “letterboxes”. You know, the one who said the people of Papua New Guinea were “cannibals”. The guy who wrote in The Spectator that Africans would be better off if ruled by white colonisers and that some children he saw singing on the continent were “AIDS - ridden.” The bloke who described the then President of the USA as “part-Kenyan” (like the current one he will describe as “part-German” no doubt) with an “ancestral” dislike as a reason for his alleged “hatred” of the U.K.
Obama did indeed remove the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office which Trump restored.
I also notice you completely ignored the fact the Tories now have more ethnic minorities in the top 3 posts of the Great Offices of State than their Labour and LD shadows because Tories take action to promote minorities on merit unlike the patronising left who prefer a victim mentality
Is that all you’ve got? Obama removed the bust because he wanted something else there - it had been put there by GWB and he is entitled to put wants there. How does that show he hates the U.K? His work with Prince Harry on the Invictus Games shows more compassion to our veterans than your benighted austerity peddlers have shown. Such actions are more concrete and meaningful than a model of a dead leader in the corner of your office. It was, as you right wingers call it, fake news.
There were incidents of cannibalism in Spain as recently this year. Don’t see him mentioning that. What’s your point here exactly?
I notice you don’t address the other blatantly racist things your blatantly racist leader has said. Do educate me on how Africa would be better off under colonialism? I’m all ears.
I’m not one for hypotheticals, but the history of Africa since decolonisation has not been one of unalloyed joy and progress. That’s not to say that colonial government was entirely good either. As always, when humans are involved, things are less than perfect
It’s the same Boris Johnson who described Africans as “ Picanninnies” with “watermelon smiles”. Indeed the same Boris Johnson who described Muslim women as looking like “letterboxes”. You know, the one who said the people of Papua New Guinea were “cannibals”. The guy who wrote in The Spectator that Africans would be better off if ruled by white colonisers and that some children he saw singing on the continent were “AIDS - ridden.” The bloke who described the then President of the USA as “part-Kenyan” (like the current one he will describe as “part-German” no doubt) with an “ancestral” dislike as a reason for his alleged “hatred” of the U.K.
Obama did indeed remove the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office which Trump restored.
I also notice you completely ignored the fact the Tories now have more ethnic minorities in the top 3 posts of the Great Offices of State than their Labour and LD shadows because Tories take action to promote minorities on merit unlike the patronising left who prefer a victim mentality
Is that all you’ve got? Obama removed the bust because he wanted something else there - it had been put there by GWB and he is entitled to put wants there. How does that show he hates the U.K? His work with Prince Harry on the Invictus Games shows more compassion to our veterans than your benighted austerity peddlers have shown. Such actions are more concrete and meaningful than a model of a dead leader in the corner of your office. It was, as you right wingers call it, fake news.
There were incidents of cannibalism in Spain as recently this year. Don’t see him mentioning that. What’s your point here exactly?
I notice you don’t address the other blatantly racist things your blatantly racist leader has said. Do educate me on how Africa would be better off under colonialism? I’m all ears.
I’m not one for hypotheticals, but the history of Africa since decolonisation has not been one of unalloyed joy and progress. That’s not to say that colonial government was entirely good either. As always, when humans are involved, things are less than perfect
As Asquith famously said, 'self-government is better than good government.'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account for the vast majority of non-gun homicide victims/arrestees, of the gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 57% were black, 40.6% white (including Hispanic), 1.35% Asian, 0.98% unknown race and 0.48% Native American.
Non-gun homicides, represented about 30% of total murders in the time period. Blacks were still overrepresented although only by about 2.5x their share of the general population. Of the non-gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 61.5% were white (including Hispanic), 32.9% black, 2.29% Asian, 1.89% unknown race and 1.43% Native American.
If true, those are quite striking statistics given the perpetrators of the killing sprees reported by the UK media are almost always white. I guess this means that the scale of gun crime within the black community is pretty big as it outweighs all the killing sprees perpetrated by whites.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear when there was no requirement to do so.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British prime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
This is still a country where too many people squat on their haunches, slowly waving their hands to move the flies from their faces. Too many people are rootling aimlessly for rubbish, competing with the marabou storks. Too many people are dying. But the epidemic is at last diminishing, from a high of 30 per cent, in a population carpetbombed with safe-sex initiatives, and they are wising up to the reasons for transmission (if we love Amanda, and admire Miranda, what do we do with Buganda?). The economy is growing at 6 per cent; and if Museveni is no democrat, he is no Mugabe. If Blair has any sense, he won't wring his hands over Africa. He'll urge us all to come here for our holidays — and what could be better than the Murchison Falls. He'll talk us into snapping up that little island in Lake Victoria, investing in hotels, TVs, mobile-phone companies. The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.'
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
...It has been pointed out that more people in Wales speak Polish than Welsh...
Um, hold on, plausibility check.
If @ydoethur's figure of 29% is correct, and Wales's population is 3.125 million, that that would mean nine hundred thou... sod it, about a million Welsh speakers in Wales. Unless something has dramatically changed, I doubt there are a million Polish migrants in Wales. So that looks like an arse-drawer figure.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
I think you will also find that sweeping generalisations are unhelpful. For example, large parts of Montgomeryshire and a significant chunk of north-western Shropshire are Welsh-speaking, as are the western Valleys and Carmarthenshire. Ystradgynlais is a town with a significant Welsh language population. Equally, speak it in large parts of Aberystwyth and you will get blank looks. You will hear it spoken in Llwyngwril, but not in Fairbourne five miles to the north.
Is it not also the case that speakers of different Welsh dialects would likely be unintelligable to each other?
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'unintelligible.' There are very significant dialectical differences, more so than in English. That means that, for example, when I am speaking in Welsh to somebody from Arfon I have to keep adjusting my ideas for certain words and sometimes I will get funny looks (although that might also be because my Welsh is not very good)!
Tcations in Welsh and he spread of Welsh language television and radio, so it may be that the spoken language will become more homogenous from hereon in.
Thanks Ydoethur. That's very interesting and kind of hopeful.
May I ask if you share my irritation with dual language names and road signs?
The Italians don't find it necessary to tell English tourists that they are approaching Florence rather than Firenze. Nor do the Germans bother to translate Ausfahrt for us at the exit to motorways. So why do we need telling that Caerdydd is really Cardiff in disguise? And if the English want to call Abertawe something completely diferent, that's our business and we shouldn't require the locals to accommodate our parochialism by putting up helpful hints that it's what we call Swansea. As for Araf, if you need the English translation painted on the roads to tell you what it means, you shouldn't really be driving.
You're in Wales, ffs. Cope with the local anguage or stay at home. No?
As Asquith famously said, 'self-government is better than good government.'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
It does seem rather strange for those who are arguing as I am in terms of national sovereignty as a reason for supporting Brexit to then argue in favour of colonialism. Yes it undoubtedly did some good. It also did a great deal of evil. But in the end neither of those are an argument against self determination. For Brexiteers to argue in favour of colonialism is just.. well, weird.
I think you will also find that sweeping generalisations are unhelpful. For example, large parts of Montgomeryshire and a significant chunk of north-western Shropshire are Welsh-speaking, as are the western Valleys and Carmarthenshire. Ystradgynlais is a town with a significant Welsh language population. Equally, speak it in large parts of Aberystwyth and you will get blank looks. You will hear it spoken in Llwyngwril, but not in Fairbourne five miles to the north.
29% includes those who only speak it partly not fully and 71% thus do not speak it at all.
Of the current Tory held seats as I said only Montgomeryshire is a Plaid target with significant numbers of Welsh speakers and indeed at the last general election Plaid were still only 4th there
And?
You think it somehow doesn't matter?
Has it occurred to you that it's going to make it a hell of a lot more difficult to hold or take Welsh-speaking seats, not just from Plaid? Vale of Clwyd, Wrexham, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Montgomeryshire, Carmarthen West, Bridgend and Aberconwy all spring to mind as potential targets/defences with substantial Welsh language populations.
And Welsh speakers do not only vote for Plaid Cymru. Huge numbers vote Labour, although that might be changing, and believe me plenty in Montgomeryshire in particular will cheerfully vote for the Liberal Democrats.
Of those seats you mention as the map at this link shows not 1 bar possibly Aberconwy montghas a percentage of Welsh speakers over 40% and indeed most do not have a percentage over 30% either (indeed Bridgend barely has 10% Welsh speakers).
However that of course assumes that there was something so drastically wrong with Boris saying Welsh was 'a weird version of Creole' which I fail to see there is anyway
it is a joke in modern times that every Tom Dick and Harry gets these pathetic baubles for doing hee haw.
Pause.
OK, if you give me the instructions on how to do "hee haw", I'll see what I can do. Although my legs aren't as good as they were. Does it involve lifting?
I’ll leave it to your glorious leader to tell you exactly what he thought of gay marriage in 2001 -
“If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.” - B. Johnson. ‘’Friends, Voters, Countrymen', 2001.
I’m not sure how convinced the LGBTQ+ community are by his apparent conversion. Not very is the feedback I’m getting.
To be fair, Peter Tatchell has tried to view the arrival of Boris in Number 10 in a balanced way. His article in the Independent a couple of weeks ago was pretty fair but also set out some indicators that the LGBT community could use to see if Boris was going to be supportive of the LGBT community. I think some of these at least are very reasonable. It would be good if Boris did take action on them.
As an aside, when is someone going to have the sense to ennoble Tatchell. As a voice for reason representing a significant part of British society he would be a huge asset to the second chamber.
Hasn't he said some pretty 'controversial' things about underage sex (mentioned on here I think)? Though he's been courageous in much of his campaigning, I think that might make it a no no.
Not sure. This might be one of those areas where I have not researched enough but as it stands I stick to my view he would be a great asset to an amending and guiding chamber.
I think that back in the 70s - like many on the left like Harriet Harman - he came pretty close to endorsing some of the views espoused by PIE
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
But why is he showing the zeal of a convert. And there is a trickier problem for PB as a whole. Someone has to break the news to him that Le Pen did not win the first round !
You’re entitled to your opinions but not your own facts. You are at best mistaken and at worse being deliberately disingenuous-
“According to a 2010 interview with White House curator William Allman, the decision to return the bust had been made even before Obama arrived, as the loan was scheduled to last only as long as Bush’s presidency. That narrative was confirmed by British ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott just before stepped down in 2015: “To be honest, we always expected that to leave the Oval Office just like everything else that a president has tends to be changed,” he told The Guardian newspaper. “Even the carpet is usually changed when the president changes.””
For the purposes pollsters my arse. You are a person who believes in leaving the EU. You are thus a Leaver.
This isn’t Warwick Uni debating society.
There was nothing wrong with my facts, my facts were entirely correct even if left liberals like you do not like them, tough. Indeed nothing in the quotations you gave shows the British Embassy required the Churchill bust back, it was loaned to the White House and Obama could have kept it on even with the change of administration.
I repeat, for the purposes of pollsters I am a Remainer, regardless of the fact I respect the Leave vote and wish to see Brexit delivered
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
But why is he showing the zeal of a convert. And there is a trickier problem for PB as a whole. Someone has to break the news to him that Le Pen did not win the first round !
She did win most departments and regions in the first round
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Don’t put him off. I remain convinced those hours he put in on the phone Banks were crucial for Jane Dodds.
That doesn’t mean that more than 19% are not going to get rather pissed off at their ancestral language being so described.
It has been pointed out that more people in Wales speak Polish than Welsh, so maybe Polish should be on the roadsigns.
Of course, that was pre-Brexit. Maybe the Poles have "... all gone back where they came from... " as per alt-right policy, so Boston, Lincs, must be packed
Comment from an Oswestry born and therefore Welsh speaking friend of mine, doing a Welsh speech to introduce a concert in Brecon:
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear when there was no requirement to do so.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British prime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
This is still a country where too many people squat on their haunches, slowly waving their hands to move the flies from their faces. Too many people are rootling aimlessly for rubbish, competing with the marabou storks. Too many people are dying. But the epidemic is at last diminishing, from a high of 30 per cent, in a population carpetbombed with safe-sex initiatives, and they are wising up to the reasons for transmission (if we love Amanda, and admire Miranda, what do we do with Buganda?). The economy is growing at 6 per cent; and if Museveni is no democrat, he is no Mugabe. If Blair has any sense, he won't wring his hands over Africa. He'll urge us all to come here for our holidays — and what could be better than the Murchison Falls. He'll talk us into snapping up that little island in Lake Victoria, investing in hotels, TVs, mobile-phone companies. The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.'
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
The bust was the biggest non-issue in recent history. As @Richard_Tyndall said, it was due to be returned. Trump got it back. So what if his favourite foreign leader was Merkel? Are you so insecure that just because someone is not your best friend they must “hate” you. That’s pathetic. Does POTUS have to have the bust of every one of his allies’ favourite leaders in the Oval Office? Are the French, who are the USA’s oldest ally, pissed off there is no DeGaulle in there? I’m sure Trump has done something for the Invictus Games but that doesn’t mean that BoJo had a scintilla of evidence for saying Obama “hated” the UK.
Cannibalism is also illegal in PNG. Boris was implying that it is a national characteristic.
‘‘The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.’‘ B. Johnson, The Sun, February 2002.
The issue was Obama deliberately removed a bust of Churchill that was already there and which Trump restored.
According to David Lammy even Comic Relief is colonialism
No he didn't. That is again a myth. Trump hasn't even restored the bust that was removed at the end of GWBs tenure. The bust there now is entirely different and had been in the White House since the 1960s.
I am not sure why you repeat these myths when it takes only a few seconds research to find out they are false. It does your cause no credit at all which, of course, bothers me greatly as a fellow Leaver.
Trump has restored a bust of Churchill to the Oval Office, Obama removed one, it is the symbol it represents that matters not who created it.
I also as you know was a reluctant Remainer not a Leaver but respect the Brexit vote, Deal or No Deal
God knows @Richard_Tyndall and I have had some bust ups but, again, this is rubbish. The Epstein bust was loaned for the period of GWB’s tenure and, as per that agreement, it was returned at the end of said tenure. If our national pride rests on office decoration then we are in more trouble than I thought.
You voted Remain but have constantly described yourself as a Leaver. People’s views are not cast in aspic. They change. Richard correctly says you are a Leaver. If you are a Remainer it’s news to us. You may have BEEN a Remainer but clearly your standpoint has moved. Where Richard and I differ, occasionally vociferously, is whether such movement should be gauged in a further referendum. However you cannot seriously suggest that as of today’s date you are not a Leaver.
When Rory takes over there’ll be nowt such a remainer as our HY.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Don’t put him off. I remain convinced those hours he put in on the phone Banks were crucial for Jane Dodds.
The LD margin fell from 15% in a poll 10 days before the by election to just 4.5% on the night thanks to Boris taking over and Tory campaigning
I think you will also find that sweeping generalisations are unhelpful. For example, large parts of Montgomeryshire and a significant chunk of north-western Shropshire are Welsh-speaking, as are the western Valleys and Carmarthenshire. Ystradgynlais is a town with a significant Welsh language population. Equally, speak it in large parts of Aberystwyth and you will get blank looks. You will hear it spoken in Llwyngwril, but not in Fairbourne five miles to the north.
Is it not also the case that speakers of different Welsh dialects would likely be unintelligable to each other?
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'unintelligible.' There are very significant dialectical differences, more so than in English. That means that, for example, when I am speaking in Welsh to somebody from Arfon I have to keep adjusting my ideas for certain words and sometimes I will get funny looks (although that might also be because my Welsh is not very good)!
There was a written standard from the eighteenth century, and thanks to the circulating schools most Welsh people could read their Bible long before England became literate. But because Welsh depends a great deal on the accent for its infamous mutations, that didn't translate well to the spoken language.
This is of course one reason why Welsh is more threatened by the breakup of local communities than English is. But I would say the differences are less acute than they were thirty years ago, particularly with the new qualifications in Welsh and he spread of Welsh language television and radio, so it may be that the spoken language will become more homogenous from hereon in.
I would agree. And add that was the case with English not too long ago. I doubt the older generation of Leigh miners in my family, who I remember from my youth would have been comprehensible to many outside the area. The arrival of the BBC helped that. Although many could not understand it.
Have you ever been to working class pubs in Newcastle or Sunderland?
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account for the vast majority of non-gun homicide victims/arrestees, of the gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 57% were black, 40.6% white (including Hispanic), 1.35% Asian, 0.98% unknown race and 0.48% Native American.
Non-gun homicides, represented about 30% of total murders in the time period. Blacks were still overrepresented although only by about 2.5x their share of the general population. Of the non-gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 61.5% were white (including Hispanic), 32.9% black, 2.29% Asian, 1.89% unknown race and 1.43% Native American.
If true, those are quite striking statistics given the perpetrators of the killing sprees reported by the UK media are almost always white. I guess this means that the scale of gun crime within the black community is pretty big as it outweighs all the killing sprees perpetrated by whites.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I think you will also find that sweeping generalisations are unhelpful. For example, large parts of Montgomeryshire and a significant chunk of north-western Shropshire are Welsh-speaking, as are the western Valleys and Carmarthenshire. Ystradgynlais is a town with a significant Welsh language population. Equally, speak it in large parts of Aberystwyth and you will get blank looks. You will hear it spoken in Llwyngwril, but not in Fairbourne five miles to the north.
Is it not also the case that speakers of different Welsh dialects would likely be unintelligable to each other?
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'unintelligible.' There are very significant dialectical differences, more so than in English. That means that, for example, when I am speaking in Welsh to somebody from Arfon I have to keep adjusting my ideas for certain words and sometimes I will get funny looks (although that might also be because my Welsh is not very good)!
Tcations in Welsh and he spread of Welsh language television and radio, so it may be that the spoken language will become more homogenous from hereon in.
Thanks Ydoethur. That's very interesting and kind of hopeful.
May I ask if you share my irritation with dual language names and road signs?
The Italians don't find it necessary to tell English tourists that they are approaching Florence rather than Firenze. Nor do the Germans bother to translate Ausfahrt for us at the exit to motorways. So why do we need telling that Caerdydd is really Cardiff in disguise? And if the English want to call Abertawe something completely diferent, that's our business and we shouldn't require the locals to accommodate our parochialism by putting up helpful hints that it's what we call Swansea. As for Araf, if you need the English translation painted on the roads to tell you what it means, you shouldn't really be driving.
You're in Wales, ffs. Cope with the local anguage or stay at home. No?
I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea.
The bust was the biggest non-issue in recent history. As @Richard_Tyndall said, it was due to be returned. Trump got it back. So what if his favourite foreign leader was Merkel? Are you so insecure that just because someone is not your best friend they must “hate” you. That’s pathetic. Does POTUS have to have the bust of every one of his allies’ favourite leaders in the Oval Office? Are the French, who are the USA’s oldest ally, pissed off there is no DeGaulle in there? I’m sure Trump has done something for the Invictus Games but that doesn’t mean that BoJo had a scintilla of evidence for saying Obama “hated” the UK.
Cannibalism is also illegal in PNG. Boris was implying that it is a national characteristic.
‘‘The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.’‘ B. Johnson, The Sun, February 2002.
The issue was Obama deliberately removed a bust of Churchill that was already there and which Trump restored.
According to David Lammy even Comic Relief is colonialism
No he didn't. That is again a myth. Trump hasn't even restored the bust that was removed at the end of GWBs tenure. The bust there now is entirely different and had been in the White House since the 1960s.
I am not sure why you repeat these myths when it takes only a few seconds research to find out they are false. It does your cause no credit at all which, of course, bothers me greatly as a fellow Leaver.
Trump has restored a bust of Churchill to the Oval Office, Obama removed one, it is the symbol it represents that matters not who created it.
I also as you know was a reluctant Remainer not a Leaver but respect the Brexit vote, Deal or No Deal
When Rory takes over there’ll be nowt such a remainer as our HY.
I have some time for Rory, he did at least back the Withdrawal Agreement but after a long and glorious Boris Premiership I would say the likely next Tory leader at the moment is the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, with the Chancellor Sajid Javid close behind. Had Boris not stood many MPs who backed him would have voted for Raab
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'unintelligible.' There are very significant dialectical differences, more so than in English. That means that, for example, when I am speaking in Welsh to somebody from Arfon I have to keep adjusting my ideas for certain words and sometimes I will get funny looks (although that might also be because my Welsh is not very good)!
Tcations in Welsh and he spread of Welsh language television and radio, so it may be that the spoken language will become more homogenous from hereon in.
Thanks Ydoethur. That's very interesting and kind of hopeful.
May I ask if you share my irritation with dual language names and road signs?
The Italians don't find it necessary to tell English tourists that they are approaching Florence rather than Firenze. Nor do the Germans bother to translate Ausfahrt for us at the exit to motorways. So why do we need telling that Caerdydd is really Cardiff in disguise? And if the English want to call Abertawe something completely diferent, that's our business and we shouldn't require the locals to accommodate our parochialism by putting up helpful hints that it's what we call Swansea. As for Araf, if you need the English translation painted on the roads to tell you what it means, you shouldn't really be driving.
You're in Wales, ffs. Cope with the local anguage or stay at home. No?
Tbh for a lot of people in South Wales English is their first language and they don't speak Welsh. I think most people would understand Caerdydd maybe a bit less Abertawe but Cardiff or Swansea much more so. I actually lived in Swansea for a bit and would not be 100% confident on how to say Abertawe out loud.
I've learnt what araf means but road warning signs should be written in a language almost everyone can understand or in both languages. I couldn't read a road warning sign in Welsh beyond that despite living here for decades and there are plenty of others the same.
Arguably English is the local language in large parts.
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear when there was no requirement to do so.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British prime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
This is still a country where too many people squat on their haunches, slowly waving their hands to move the flies from their faces. Too many people are rootling aimlessly for rubbish, competing with the marabou storks. Too many people are dying. But the epidemic is at last diminishing, from a high of 30 per cent, in a population carpetbombed with safe-sex initiatives, and they are wising up to the reasons for transmission (if we love Amanda, and admire Miranda, what do we do with Buganda?). The economy is growing at 6 per cent; and if Museveni is no democrat, he is no Mugabe. If Blair has any sense, he won't wring his hands over Africa. He'll urge us all to come here for our holidays — and what could be better than the Murchison Falls. He'll talk us into snapping up that little island in Lake Victoria, investing in hotels, TVs, mobile-phone companies. The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.'
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
Uganda is a particularly depressing example in Africa. Sometimes they do tremendously well and are a model for the rest of the continent. Then they quickly go into reverse.
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear when there was no requirement to do so.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British prime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
This is still a country where too many people squat on their haunches, slowly waving their hands to move the flies from their faces. Too many people are rootling aimlessly for rubbish, competing with the marabou storks. Too many people are dying. But the epidemic is at last diminishing, from a high of 30 per cent, in a population carpetbombed with safe-sex initiatives, and they are wising up to the reasons for transmission (if we love Amanda, and admire Miranda, what do we do with Buganda?). The economy is growing at 6 per cent; and if Museveni is no democrat, he is no Mugabe. If Blair has any sense, he won't wring his hands over Africa. He'll urge us all to come here for our holidays — and what could be better than the Murchison Falls. He'll talk us into snapping up that little island in Lake Victoria, investing in hotels, TVs, mobile-phone companies. The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.'
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
As Asquith famously said, 'self-government is better than good government.'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
It does seem rather strange for those who are arguing as I am in terms of national sovereignty as a reason for supporting Brexit to then argue in favour of colonialism. Yes it undoubtedly did some good. It also did a great deal of evil. But in the end neither of those are an argument against self determination. For Brexiteers to argue in favour of colonialism is just.. well, weird.
Just to be clear I agree with you and I am certainly not arguing in favour of colonialism.
I am arguing against selective quoting and misrepresentation though.
as are the western Valleys and Carmarthenshire. Ystradgynlais is a town with a significant Welsh language population. Equally, speak it in large parts of Aberystwyth and you will get blank looks. You will hear it spoken in Llwyngwril, but not in Fairbourne five miles to the north.
Is it not also the case that speakers of different Welsh dialects would likely be unintelligable to each other?
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'unintelligible.' There are very significant dialectical differences, more so than in English. That means that, for example, when I am speaking in Welsh to somebody from Arfon I have to keep adjusting my ideas for certain words and sometimes I will get funny looks (although that might also be because my Welsh is not very good)!
Tcations in Welsh and he spread of Welsh language television and radio, so it may be that the spoken language will become more homogenous from hereon in.
Thanks Ydoethur. That's very interesting and kind of hopeful.
May I ask if you share my irritation with dual language names and road signs?
The Italians don't find it necessary to tell English tourists that they are approaching Florence rather than Firenze. Nor do the Germans bother to translate Ausfahrt for us at the exit to motorways. So why do we need telling that Caerdydd is really Cardiff in disguise? And if the English want to call Abertawe something completely diferent, that's our business and we shouldn't require the locals to accommodate our parochialism by putting up helpful hints that it's what we call Swansea. As for Araf, if you need the English translation painted on the roads to tell you what it means, you shouldn't really be driving.
You're in Wales, ffs. Cope with the local anguage or stay at home. No?
I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea.
I must admit that the last time I went to Mumbai, everybody seemed to call it Bombay!
Good effort from Burns and Roy to make it through the seven overs to stumps.
If it doesn’t rain, all three results could still be possible.
I'd want good odds on an England win
England are never getting best part of 400 in a day. Even if pitch was flat as a pancake and were going really well, once they got within 150 or so, Australia then simply slow everything right down and bowl to a massively defensive field (plus lots of wide balls, lots of bumpers, etc).
You voted Remain but have constantly described yourself as a Leaver. People’s views are not cast in aspic. They change. Richard correctly says you are a Leaver. If you are a Remainer it’s news to us. You may have BEEN a Remainer but clearly your standpoint has moved. Where Richard and I differ, occasionally vociferously, is whether such movement should be gauged in a further referendum. However you cannot seriously suggest that as of today’s date you are not a Leaver.
Nah, one can certainly cast the way people voted in the referendum in aspic. It's not his remain vote that got us into this pickle, he just has a very strong sense that when you get on the pot you have to shit.
Look to anyone who voted to leave (@rochdalepioneers has repented) for the creation of this shit. @HYUFD is NOT responsible.
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account for the vast majority of non-gun homicide victims/arrestees, of the gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 57% were black, 40.6% white (including Hispanic), 1.35% Asian, 0.98% unknown race and 0.48% Native American.
Non-gun homicides, represented about 30% of total murders in the time period. Blacks were still overrepresented although only by about 2.5x their share of the general population. Of the non-gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 61.5% were white (including Hispanic), 32.9% black, 2.29% Asian, 1.89% unknown race and 1.43% Native American.
If true, those are quite striking statistics given the perpetrators of the killing sprees reported by the UK media are almost always white. I guess this means that the scale of gun crime within the black community is pretty big as it outweighs all the killing sprees perpetrated by whites.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear when there was no requirement to do so.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British prime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
This is still a country where too many people squat on their haunches, slowly waving their hands to move the flies from their faces. Too many people are rootling aimlessly for rubbish, competing with the marabou storks. Too many people are dying. But the epidemic is at last diminishing, from a high of 30 per cent, in a population carpetbombed with safe-sex initiatives, and they are wising up to the reasons for transmission (if we love Amanda, and admire Miranda, what do we do with Buganda?). The economy is growing at 6 per cent; and if Museveni is no democrat, he is no Mugabe. If Blair has any sense, he won't wring his hands over Africa. He'll urge us all to come here for our holidays — and what could be better than the Murchison Falls. He'll talk us into snapping up that little island in Lake Victoria, investing in hotels, TVs, mobile-phone companies. The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.'
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods
You’re entitled to your opinions but not your own facts. You are at best mistaken and at worse being deliberately disingenuous-
“According to a 2010 interview with White House curator William Allman, the decision to return the bust had been made even before Obama arrived, as the loan was scheduled to last only as long as Bush’s presidency. That narrative was confirmed by British ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott just before stepped down in 2015: “To be honest, we always expected that to leave the Oval Office just like everything else that a president has tends to be changed,” he told The Guardian newspaper. “Even the carpet is usually changed when the president changes.””
For the purposes pollsters my arse. You are a person who believes in leaving the EU. You are thus a Leaver.
This isn’t Warwick Uni debating society.
There was nothing wrong with my facts, my facts were entirely correct even if left liberals like you do not like them, tough. Indeed nothing in the quotations you gave shows the British Embassy required the Churchill bust back, it was loaned to the White House and Obama could have kept it on even with the change of administration.
I repeat, for the purposes of pollsters I am a Remainer, regardless of the fact I respect the Leave vote and wish to see Brexit delivered
No, you said he personally returned it, and implied it was a snub that showed that he “hated” the UK, whereas it was, in fact, returned by White House staff under a prior arrangement. It was returned, by White House staff, as part of an agreement. If you had said “he didn’t ask for the piece back” you may have had a point but even then it doesn’t show any animus to the UK. He likely didn’t notice it had been there. Reagan didn’t have a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office either and I doubt you are criticising him for that.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Good to hear. I take it that should Jeremy Corbyn win the next general election you will be equally vociferous in championing his policies? Will of the people and all that?
Or do you have principles at all? If so you, as a diehard remainer, can't support the policies of the current Conservative Party because you have proven, by your vote to remain in the EU, that you disagree with them.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Tories are well known for converting to a new order to keep their jobs but Amber Rudd takes the breath away; it was a tuck with a double twist.
The bust was the biggest non-issue in recent history. As @Richard_Tyndall said, it was due to be returned. Trump got it back. So what if his favourite foreign leader was Merkel? Are you so insecure that just because someone is not your best friend they must “hate” you. That’s pathetic. Does POTUS have to have the bust of every one of his allies’ favourite leaders in the Oval Office? Are the French, who are the USA’s oldest ally, pissed off there is no DeGaulle in there? I’m sure Trump has done something for the Invictus Games but that doesn’t mean that BoJo had a scintilla of evidence for saying Obama “hated” the UK.
Cannibalism is also illegal in PNG. Boris was implying that it is a national characteristic.
‘‘The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.’‘ B. Johnson, The Sun, February 2002.
The issue was Obama deliberately removed a bust of Churchill that was already there and which Trump restored.
According to David Lammy even Comic Relief is colonialism
No he didn't. That is again a myth. Trump hasn't even restored the bust that was removed at the end of GWBs tenure. The bust there now is entirely different and had been in the White House since the 1960s.
I am not sure why you repeat these myths when it takes only a few seconds research to find out they are false. It does your cause no credit at all which, of course, bothers me greatly as a fellow Leaver.
Trump has restored a bust of Churchill to the Oval Office, Obama removed one, it is the symbol it represents that matters not who created it.
I also as you know was a reluctant Remainer not a Leaver but respect the Brexit vote, Deal or No Deal
When Rory takes over there’ll be nowt such a remainer as our HY.
I have some time for Rory, he did at least back the Withdrawal Agreement but after a long and glorious Boris Premiership I would say the likely next Tory leader at the moment is the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, with the Chancellor Sajid Javid close behind. Had Boris not stood many MPs who backed him would have voted for Raab
Which is why it would be of concern to Plaid Cymru, as stated.
Yet not to the Tories as there are almost no Plaid v Tory marginal seats, of the top 8 Plaid targets in Wales only 1, Montgomeryshire is held by the Tories, the rest are held by Labour and the Tories have never won any of the existing Westminster seats held by Plaid.
I've learnt what araf means but road warning signs should be written in a language almost everyone can understand or in both languages. I couldn't read a road warning sign in Welsh beyond that despite living here for decades and there are plenty of others the same.
I always liked the story of the signwriters who could speak no Welsh, but emailed someone on the local council to translate for them... until they put up a sign which said (in Welsh) "I am out of the office until Monday. I will deal with this on my return"
As Asquith famously said, 'self-government is better than good government.'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
It does seem rather strange for those who are arguing as I am in terms of national sovereignty as a reason for supporting Brexit to then argue in favour of colonialism. Yes it undoubtedly did some good. It also did a great deal of evil. But in the end neither of those are an argument against self determination. For Brexiteers to argue in favour of colonialism is just.. well, weird.
Just to be clear I agree with you and I am certainly not arguing in favour of colonialism.
I am arguing against selective quoting and misrepresentation though.
You are also arguing that you, a white man, are in a position to say what is "good" or "bad" for Africa. How do you get to be the arbiter?
The bust was the biggest non-issue in recent history. As @Richard_Tyndall said, it was due to be returned. Trump got it back. So what if his favourite foreign leader was Merkel? Are you so insecure that just because someone is not your best friend they must “hate” you. That’s pathetic. Does POTUS have to have the bust of every one of his allies’ favourite leaders in the Oval Office? Are the French, who are the USA’s oldest ally, pissed off there is no DeGaulle in there? I’m sure Trump has done something for the Invictus Games but that doesn’t mean that BoJo had a scintilla of evidence for saying Obama “hated” the UK.
Cannibalism is also illegal in PNG. Boris was implying that it is a national characteristic.
‘‘The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.’‘ B. Johnson, The Sun, February 2002.
The issue was Obama deliberately removed a bust of Churchill that was already there and which Trump restored.
According to David Lammy even Comic Relief is colonialism
No he didn't. That is again a myth. Trump hasn't even restored the bust that was removed at the end of GWBs tenure. The bust there now is entirely different and had been in the White House since the 1960s.
I am not sure why you repeat these myths when it takes only a few seconds research to find out they are false. It does your cause no credit at all which, of course, bothers me greatly as a fellow Leaver.
Trump has restored a bust of Churchill to the Oval Office, Obama removed one, it is the symbol it represents that matters not who created it.
I also as you know was a reluctant Remainer not a Leaver but respect the Brexit vote, Deal or No Deal
When Rory takes over there’ll be nowt such a remainer as our HY.
I have some time for Rory, he did at least back the Withdrawal Agreement but after a long and glorious Boris Premiership I would say the likely next Tory leader at the moment is the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, with the Chancellor Sajid Javid close behind. Had Boris not stood many MPs who backed him would have voted for Raab
This is a post that's not likely to age well
It will do, Raab also did well in Tory members' polls too
As Asquith famously said, 'self-government is better than good government.'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
It does seem rather strange for those who are arguing as I am in terms of national sovereignty as a reason for supporting Brexit to then argue in favour of colonialism. Yes it undoubtedly did some good. It also did a great deal of evil. But in the end neither of those are an argument against self determination. For Brexiteers to argue in favour of colonialism is just.. well, weird.
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account for the vast majority of non-gun homicide victims/arrestees, of the gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 57% were blI guess this means that the scale of gun crime within the black community is pretty big as it outweighs all the killing sprees perpetrated by whites.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
I think you will also find that sweeping generalisations are unhelpful. For example, large parts of Montgomeryshire and a significant chunk of north-western Shropshire are Welsh-speaking, as are the western Valleys and Carmarthenshire. Ystradgynlais is a town with a significant Welsh language population. Equally, speak it in large parts of Aberystwyth and you will get blank looks. You will hear it spoken in Llwyngwril, but not in Fairbourne five miles to the north.
Is it not also the case that speakers of different Welsh dialects would likely be unintelligable to each other?
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'unintelligible.' There are very significant dialectical differences, more so than in English. That means that, for example, when I am speaking in Welsh to somebody from Arfon I have to keep adjusting my ideas for certain words and sometimes I will get funny looks (although that might also be because my Welsh is not very good)!
There was a written standard from the eighteenth century, and thanks to the circulating schools most Welsh people could read their Bible long before England became literate. But because Welsh depends a great deal on the accent for its infamous mutations, that didn't translate well to the spoken language.
This is of course one reason why Welsh is more threatened by the breakup of local communities than English is. But I would say the differences are less acute than they were thirty years ago, particularly with the new qualifications in Welsh and he spread of Welsh language television and radio, so it may be that the spoken language will become more homogenous from hereon in.
I would agree. And add that was the case with English not too long ago. I doubt the older generation of Leigh miners in my family, who I remember from my youth would have been comprehensible to many outside the area. The arrival of the BBC helped that. Although many could not understand it.
Have you ever been to working class pubs in Newcastle or Sunderland?
I used to work in employment training (helping the long term unemployed back in to work) in the NE. So yes. Though I try to avoid pubs.
re Stark_dawning "I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea."
Well, speaking as someone who was born and raised in Swansea, if I was speaking in Welsh to my father I would refer to it as Abertawe, if speaking in English to my mother then it would be Swansea - the joys of bilingualism eh?
FWIW, I find Johnson's comments on the Welsh language to be snide and condescending, but I would expect no better from him.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Good to hear. I take it that should Jeremy Corbyn win the next general election you will be equally vociferous in championing his policies? Will of the people and all that?
Or do you have principles at all? If so you, as a diehard remainer, can't support the policies of the current Conservative Party because you have proven, by your vote to remain in the EU, that you disagree with them.
Time to find another party.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the next general election yes, of course I will respect the fact he will form the next government but I will oppose his policies vociferously and aim to win the general election after.
The EU referendum resulted in a vote to Leave and that has to be respected to, I do not support refusing to respect a vote to Leave the EU and the fact we are still in the EU when we should have left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear when there was no requirement to do so.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British prime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods
He said that they were relying on plantain and thus over relying on carbohydrates thus not feeding themselves properly. That’s both false (plantain is west African in origin) and racist as it implies that they had poor diet because of their ethnicity. For what it’s worth there is evidence that an African diet is more healthy than the western - which is hardly surprising. Do you really think that Africans lasted for hundreds of thousands of years before colonisation on a poor diet without significant issues?
You’re entitled to your opinions but not your own facts. You are at best mistaken and at worse being deliberately disingenuous-
“According to a 2010 interview with White House curator William Allman, the decision to return the bust had been made even before Obama arrived, as the loan was scheduled to last only as long as Bush’s presidency. That narrative was confirmed by British ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott just before stepped down in 2015: “To be honest, we always expected that to leave the Oval Office just like everything else that a president has tends to be changed,” he told The Guardian newspaper. “Even the carpet is usually changed when the president changes.””
For the purposes pollsters my arse. You are a person who believes in leaving the EU. You are thus a Leaver.
This isn’t Warwick Uni debating society.
There was non.
I repeat, for the purposes of pollsters I am a Remainer, regardless of the fact I respect the Leave vote and wish to see Brexit delivered
No, you said he personally returnedr that.
'Barack Obama's White House has been forced to admit that it did return a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to British diplomats, after describing such claims as "100 per cent false".'
'Aides to Mr Obama were furious after The Daily Telegraph disclosed last week that Mitt Romney planned to restore the Jacob Epstein sculpture to its home under George W Bush from 2001 to 2009. "I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again," the Republican challenger confirmed at a fund-raiser at London's Mandarin Oriental hotel. Dan Pfeiffer, the President's communications director, said in a statement that widespread reports of the bust being returned to Britain's embassy in Washington as Mr Obama took office were untrue. "This is 100 per cent false," Mr Pfeiffer said. "The bust is still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room". Illustrating his statement with a photograph of Mr Obama inspecting it with David Cameron in 2010, he added: "Hopefully this clears things up a bit and prevents folks from making this ridiculous claim again". British officials were surprised by Mr Pfeiffer's statement and photograph, however, because the bust now resides in the residence of Sir Peter Westmacott, Britain's ambassador to the US.'
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account for the vast majority of non-gun homicide victims/arrestees, of the gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 57% were black, 40.6% white (including Hispanic), 1.35% Asian, 0.98% unknown race and 0.48% Native American. .
.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Not sure where you are going with this, but surely the number of gun crimes committed by criminals as a part of their overall criminal activity is a different problem to people shooting up other people for political reasons or due to mental health issues. If gun control reduces the latter, isn't that justification enough for it even if it is ineffective against the former? And the relative scales of the two problems doesn't seem particularly relevant.
re Stark_dawning "I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea."
Well, speaking as someone who was born and raised in Swansea, if I was speaking in Welsh to my father I would refer to it as Abertawe, if speaking in English to my mother then it would be Swansea - the joys of bilingualism eh?
FWIW, I find Johnson's comments on the Welsh language to be snide and condescending, but I would expect no better from him.
Naturally. When with my German friends I refer to Koeln, not Cologne, but I wouldn't expect the German Government to put the English version up on their motorways to help me find the place.
Why not ask the people of Abertawe/Swansea what they want to call it, and stick to that? Would save a lot of trouble.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Good to hear. I take it that should Jeremy Corbyn win the next general election you will be equally vociferous in championing his policies? Will of the people and all that?
Or do you have principles at all? If so you, as a diehard remainer, can't support the policies of the current Conservative Party because you have proven, by your vote to remain in the EU, that you disagree with them.
Time to find another party.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the next general election yes, of course I will respect the fact he will form the next government but I will oppose his policies vociferously and aim to win the general election after.
The EU referendum resulted in a vote to Leave and that has to be respected to, I do not support refusing to respect a vote to Leave the EU and the fact we are still in the EU when we should have left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
Don’t you think that the Mytilenian Debate establishes an alternate precedent of a democracy changing its mind before implementation of the first vote by the people who invented western democracy?
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear when there was no requirement to do so.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British prime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods
He said that they were relying on plantain and thus over relying on carbohydrates thus not feeding themselves properly. That’s both false (plantain is west African in origin) and racist as it implies that they had poor diet because of their ethnicity. For what it’s worth there is evidence that an African diet is more healthy than the western - which is hardly surprising. Do you really think that Africans lasted for hundreds of thousands of years before colonisation on a poor diet without significant issues?
Plantain is 16% carbohydrate, 2% protein. So nothing factually incorrect there and the plantain banana is a staple crop in Uganda
A cheeky request. My partner is researching DEFRA. Unfortunately, she did the work on Gove. Now he isn't there. Anyone know Theresa Villiers' record on LGBT rights? They seem to be pretty liberal, am I right?
re Stark_dawning "I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea."
Well, speaking as someone who was born and raised in Swansea, if I was speaking in Welsh to my father I would refer to it as Abertawe, if speaking in English to my mother then it would be Swansea - the joys of bilingualism eh?
FWIW, I find Johnson's comments on the Welsh language to be snide and condescending, but I would expect no better from him.
So some locals of Swansea do indeed refer to it as Abertawe. I'm fine with that. Just saying that I've never heard any do so.
Good effort from Burns and Roy to make it through the seven overs to stumps.
If it doesn’t rain, all three results could still be possible.
I'd want good odds on an England win
In all Test history there have been 20 scores of 398+ in the 4th innings, but only one of those was in less than 100 6-ball overs, which was in 2002 at Christchurch when Nathan Astle scored a remarkable 222 at 8 runs an over as New Zealand scored 451 in 93 overs to lose by 98 runs.
It would take a career-best performance from at least one of Roy, Buttler or Stokes - I don't think any of the other players are even theoretically capable.
re Stark_dawning "I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea."
Well, speaking as someone who was born and raised in Swansea, if I was speaking in Welsh to my father I would refer to it as Abertawe, if speaking in English to my mother then it would be Swansea - the joys of bilingualism eh?
FWIW, I find Johnson's comments on the Welsh language to be snide and condescending, but I would expect no better from him.
Naturally. When with my German friends I refer to Koeln, not Cologne, but I wouldn't expect the German Government to put the English version up on their motorways to help me find the place.
Why not ask the people of Abertawe/Swansea what they want to call it, and stick to that? Would save a lot of trouble.
I’m not sure there would be a consensus. In English it is Swansea, so that should be acceptable if conversing in English, but different considerations apply in Welsh. In Ireland (the 26 counties at least) it’s considered bad form to call the country Eire when speaking or writing in English because that’s the Irish Language name for the country, whereas their constitution makes it clear that, in English, the name of the State is Ireland.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Good to hear. I take it that should Jeremy Corbyn win the next general election you will be equally vociferous in championing his policies? Will of the people and all that?
Or do you have principles at all? If so you, as a diehard remainer, can't support the policies of the current Conservative Party because you have proven, by your vote to remain in the EU, that you disagree with them.
Time to find another party.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the next general election yes, of course I will respect the fact he will form the next government but I will oppose his policies vociferously and aim to win the general election after.
The EU referendum resulted in a vote to Leave and that has to be respected to, I do not support refusing to respect a vote to Leave the EU and the fact we are still in the EU when we should have left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
Don’t you think that the Mytilenian Debate establishes an alternate precedent of a democracy changing its mind before implementation of the first vote by the people who invented western democracy?
No, as the Athenians still executed the leaders of the Mytilenian revolt, razed the city walls and divided most of the land of Lesbos amongst themselves. In any case it was more a successful appeal of a sentence imposed than overturning a democratic vote for a new direction for the society
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Good to hear. I take it that should Jeremy Corbyn win the next general election you will be equally vociferous in championing his policies? Will of the people and all that?
Or do you have principles at all? If so you, as a diehard remainer, can't support the policies of the current Conservative Party because you have proven, by your vote to remain in the EU, that you disagree with them.
Time to find another party.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the next general election yes, of course I will respect the fact he will form the next government but I will oppose his policies vociferously and aim to win the general election after.
The EU referendum resulted in a vote to Leave and that has to be respected to, I do not support refusing to respect a vote to Leave the EU and the fact we are still in the EU when we should have left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
You disagree with this government's policy and yet are supporting it. That is pretty strange. The government wants to leave with no deal and to leave the single market and customs union. By your vote in 2016 you showed that you disagree with this. You are, simply, in the wrong party. It is the same with Labour. If they were to win by your own reckoning you should support it because their policies, likewise, are ones that you disagree with. Your only criterion of supporting a policy it seems is because it was arrived at democratically. So if Labour were elected by your own logic you would have no option but to support them.
re Stark_dawning "I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea."
Well, speaking as someone who was born and raised in Swansea, if I was speaking in Welsh to my father I would refer to it as Abertawe, if speaking in English to my mother then it would be Swansea - the joys of bilingualism eh?
FWIW, I find Johnson's comments on the Welsh language to be snide and condescending, but I would expect no better from him.
Naturally. When with my German friends I refer to Koeln, not Cologne, but I wouldn't expect the German Government to put the English version up on their motorways to help me find the place.
Why not ask the people of Abertawe/Swansea what they want to call it, and stick to that? Would save a lot of trouble.
Putting Abertawe/Swansea on roadsigns is not a lot of trouble - the marginal cost is peanuts after all. I don't understand why some people get so exercised by it.
As Asquith famously said, 'self-government is better than good government.'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
It does seem rather strange for those who are arguing as I am in terms of national sovereignty as a reason for supporting Brexit to then argue in favour of colonialism. Yes it undoubtedly did some good. It also did a great deal of evil. But in the end neither of those are an argument against self determination. For Brexiteers to argue in favour of colonialism is just.. well, weird.
Just to be clear I agree with you and I am certainly not arguing in favour of colonialism.
I am arguing against selective quoting and misrepresentation though.
You are also arguing that you, a white man, are in a position to say what is "good" or "bad" for Africa. How do you get to be the arbiter?
Well if you looked at my original comment it was that the post-colonial history of Africa has not been an “unalloyed success”
I would have thought that’s a relatively uncontroversial judgement and my skin colour has no bearing on it.
In fact I’d go further: you are implying that Africans should not be criticised for events such as the Rwandan genocide. Your infantilisation of them is far more racist than my comment.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
As Asquith famously said, 'self-government is better than good government.'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
It does seem rather strange for those who are arguing as I am in terms of national sovereignty as a reason for supporting Brexit to then argue in favour of colonialism. Yes it undoubtedly did some good. It also did a great deal of evil. But in the end neither of those are an argument against self determination. For Brexiteers to argue in favour of colonialism is just.. well, weird.
Just to be clear I agree with you and I am certainly not arguing in favour of colonialism.
I am arguing against selective quoting and misrepresentation though.
You are also arguing that you, a white man, are in a position to say what is "good" or "bad" for Africa. How do you get to be the arbiter?
Well if you looked at my original comment it was that the post-colonial history of Africa has not been an “unalloyed success”
I would have thought that’s a relatively uncontroversial judgement and my skin colour has no bearing on it.
In fact I’d go further: you are implying that Africans should not be criticised for events such as the Rwandan genocide. Your infantilisation of them is far more racist than my comment.
Your thrust seemed to be, as in your own words about "unalloyed success" that you were measuring them and to be excluding such moral outrages as the Rwandan genocide, which I am assuming you thought was an unalloyed disaster. You are trying to elide the two bringing up Rwanda whereas I did no such thing.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish
Good to hear. I take it that should Jeremy Corbyn win the next general election you will be equally vociferous in championing his policies? Will of the people and all that?
Or do you have principles at all? If so you, as a diehard remainer, can't support the policies of the current Conservative Party because you have proven, by your vote to remain in the EU, that you disagree with them.
Time to find another party.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the next general election yes, of course I will respect the fact he will form the next government but I will oppose his policies vociferously and aim to win the general election after.
The EU referendum resulted in a vote to Leave and that has to be respected to, I do not support refusing to respect a vote to Leave the EU and the fact we are still in the EU when we should have left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
Don’t you think that the Mytilenian Debate establishes an alternate precedent of a democracy changing its mind before implementation of the first vote by the people who invented western democracy?
No, as the Athenians still executed the leaders of the Mytilenian revolt, razed the city walls and divided most of the land of Lesbos amongst themselves. In any case it was more a successful appeal of a sentence imposed than overturning a democratic vote for a new direction for the society
That’s rather evasive and disingenuous. The results of the original democratic vote were to execute all the Mytilenian men and enslave their women and children. However, that original vote was not honoured as a result of a subsequent vote, and an alternate outcome substituted. As for the direction of society, this was a key debate, pitching Diodotus' rational interest against Cleon's appeal for vengeance. The debate was key stage in determining whether Athens followed a culture of rational debate or misuse of power. Ultimately Cleon’s side probably won.
A cheeky request. My partner is researching DEFRA. Unfortunately, she did the work on Gove. Now he isn't there. Anyone know Theresa Villiers' record on LGBT rights? They seem to be pretty liberal, am I right?
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear when there was no requirement to do so.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British prime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods
He said that they were relying on plantain and thus over relying on carbohydrates thus not feeding themselves properly. That’s both false (plantain is west African in origin) and racist as it implies that they had poor diet because of their ethnicity. For what it’s worth there is evidence that an African diet is more healthy than the western - which is hardly surprising. Do you really think that Africans lasted for hundreds of thousands of years before colonisation on a poor diet without significant issues?
Don’t want to get in the middle here but I think you are misreading.
He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
As we've seen here the number of people a single person can kill is lower of they are armed with a knife/sword then if they are armed with multiple guns.
Grim news from the US concerning gun crime, but there's some interesting stuff on Wiki concerning homicides and race
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account for the vast majority of non-gun homicide victims/arrestees, of the gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 57% were black, 40.6% white (including Hispanic), 1.35% Asian, 0.98% unknown race and 0.48% Native American. .
.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Not sure where you are going with this, but surely the number of gun crimes committed by criminals as a part of their overall criminal activity is a different problem to people shooting up other people for political reasons or due to mental health issues. If gun control reduces the latter, isn't that justification enough for it even if it is ineffective against the former? And the relative scales of the two problems doesn't seem particularly relevant.
Disagreeing with the word “slash”. There are lots of good reasons for gun control but it won’t have a major impact on overall homicide numbers
A cheeky request. My partner is researching DEFRA. Unfortunately, she did the work on Gove. Now he isn't there. Anyone know Theresa Villiers' record on LGBT rights? They seem to be pretty liberal, am I right?
She is very right wing on almost anything.
Although, not apparently on LGBT, or hunting. Yes, I know, I was shocked, too.
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear when there was no requirement to do so.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British prime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods
He said that they were relying on plantain and thus over relying on carbohydrates thus not feeding themselves properly. That’s both false (plantain is west African in origin) and racist as it implies that they had poor diet because of their ethnicity. For what it’s worth there is evidence that an African diet is more healthy than the western - which is hardly surprising. Do you really think that Africans lasted for hundreds of thousands of years before colonisation on a poor diet without significant issues?
Don’t want to get in the middle here but I think you are misreading.
He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.
So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?
Grim news from the US concerning gun crime, but there's some interesting stuff on Wiki concerning homicides and race
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account for the vast majority of non-gun homicide victims/arrestees, of the gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 57% were black, 40.6% white (including Hispanic), 1.35% Asian, 0.98% unknown race and 0.48% Native American. .
.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Not sure where you are going with this, but surely the number of gun crimes cor political reasons or due to mental health issues. If gun control reduces the latter, isn't that justification enough for it even if it is ineffective against the former? And the relative scales of the two problems doesn't seem particularly relevant.
Disagreeing with the word “slash”. There are lots of good reasons for gun control but it won’t have a major impact on overall homicide numbers
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear when there was no requirement to do so.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British prime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods
He said that they were relying on plantain and thus over relying on carbohydrates thus not feeding themselves properly. That’s both false (plantain is west African in origin) and racist as it implies that they had poor diet because of their ethnicity. For what it’s worth there is evidence that an African diet is more healthy than the western - which is hardly surprising. Do you really think that Africans lasted for hundreds of thousands of years before colonisation on a poor diet without significant issues?
Development has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. And yes in the past many societies healthcare and diets etc were worse than they are now.
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
T obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Knock it off Charles. The US has a level of gun killings more in keeping with a failed State or War Zone than a civilised country.
I hope you are not suggesting there is something peculiar about the people there? They seem fairly normal in most respects.
As Asquith famously said, 'self-government is better than good government.'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
It does seem rather strange for those who are arguing as I am in terms of national sovereignty as a reason for supporting Brexit to then argue in favour of colonialism. Yes it undoubtedly did some good. It also did a great deal of evil. But in the end neither of those are an argument against self determination. For Brexiteers to argue in favour of colonialism is just.. well, weird.
Just to be clear I agree with you and I am certainly not arguing in favour of colonialism.
I am arguing against selective quoting and misrepresentation though.
You are also arguing that you, a white man, are in a position to say what is "good" or "bad" for Africa. How do you get to be the arbiter?
Well if you looked at my original comment it was that the post-colonial history of Africa has not been an “unalloyed success”
I would have thought that’s a relatively uncontroversial judgement and my skin colour has no bearing on it.
In fact I’d go further: you are implying that Africans should not be criticised for events such as the Rwandan genocide. Your infantilisation of them is far more racist than my comment.
Your thrust seemed to be, as in your own words about "unalloyed success" that you were measuring them and to be excluding such moral outrages as the Rwandan genocide, which I am assuming you thought was an unalloyed disaster. You are trying to elide the two bringing up Rwanda whereas I did no such thing.
My thrust was simply that life is more complicated than a colonial / post colonial narrative can support. Some things have gone well in African, others have gone less well.
Obama removed the Churchill bust given by the British Embassy from the Oval Office as even the article you linked to makes clear whe?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods
He said that they were relying on plantain and thus over relying on carbohydrates thus not feeding themselves properly. That’s both false (plantain is west African in origin) and racist as it implies that they had poor diet because of their ethnicity. For what it’s worth there is evidence that an African diet is more healthy than the western - which is hardly surprising. Do you really think that Africans lasted for hundreds of thousands of years before colonisation on a poor diet without significant issues?
Development has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. And yes in the past many societies healthcare and diets etc were worse than they are now.
And your post is a complete non-sequeteur. In every single society on Earth healthcare was worse than it is now. Diet is less clear cut - the modern American and British diets may not be as good as our ancestors.
Getting back to the point, it is racist to say that the white man came in and fixed the black man’s diet. That’s what he is saying. It’s a falsehood based on a delusional idea of ethnic superiority, ergo racist.
As Asquith famously said, 'self-government is better than good government.'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
It does seem rather strange for those who are arguing as I am in terms of national sovereignty as a reason for supporting Brexit to then argue in favour of colonialism. Yes it undoubtedly did some good. It also did a great deal of evil. But in the end neither of those are an argument against self determination. For Brexiteers to argue in favour of colonialism is just.. well, weird.
Just to be clear I agree with you and I am certainly not arguing in favour of colonialism.
I am arguing against selective quoting and misrepresentation though.
You are also arguing that you, a white man, are in a position to say what is "good" or "bad" for Africa. How do you get to be the arbiter?
Well if you looked at my original comment it was that the post-colonial history of Africa has not been an “unalloyed success”
I would have thought that’s a relatively uncontroversial judgement and my skin colour has no bearing on it.
In fact I’d go further: you are implying that Africans should not be criticised for events such as the Rwandan genocide. Your infantilisation of them is far more racist than my comment.
Your thrust seemed to be, as in your own words about "unalloyed success" that you were measuring them and to be excluding such moral outrages as the Rwandan genocide, which I am assuming you thought was an unalloyed disaster. You are trying to elide the two bringing up Rwanda whereas I did no such thing.
My thrust was simply that life is more complicated than a colonial / post colonial narrative can support. Some things have gone well in African, others have gone less well.
My objection was to the judgement. By whose measure have they gone well or less well?
How do The Troubles, say, impinge upon our own "unalloyed success" as a nation, or the clearances, or winning the world cup, or is it the case that every nation has many disparate elements which constitute its history and to pass judgement on it as a whole, especially as an outsider, is rather asinine?
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Don’t put him off. I remain convinced those hours he put in on the phone Banks were crucial for Jane Dodds.
The LD margin fell from 15% in a poll 10 days before the by election to just 4.5% on the night thanks to Boris taking over and Tory campaigning
Or alternatively the opinion poll was inaccurate, and Bozo's entry to No. 10 made no difference.
Your Boris quote is a typical left liberal distortion of the truth, selective quotation and dirty trick. Boris actually said 'Heaven knows what the Foreign Office has cooked up for Blair, or quite how this British ime minister will choose to break the winds of change. But we must hope, for the sake of candour and common sense, that he does not blame Britain, or colonialism, or the white man. The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more....
And who could disagree with that?
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods
He said that they were relying on plantain and thus over relying on carbohydrates thus not feeding themselves properly. That’s both false (plantain is west African in origin) and racist as it implies that they had poor diet because of their ethnicity. For what it’s worth there is evidence that an African diet is more healthy than the western - which is hardly surprising. Do you really think that Africans lasted for hundreds of thousands of years before colonisation on a poor diet without significant issues?
Don’t want to get in the middle here but I think you are misreading.
He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.
So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?
I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average
When guns are readily available, almost literally anything could spark a fatal escalation or accident. Not really so true for knives even.
It is a cultural thing though. There are countries with guns that dont have America's problems.
Yes. You could try and change the culture to reduce the number of gun deaths, or you could decide that tightening the rules on who owns guns is more likely to reduce deaths in the short term, while trying to change the culture long term, or you could even decide that the number of deaths is a price worth paying for the right to own guns with little restriction.
Claiming that tightening the rules on gun ownership will have no effect is a denial of reality.
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
I don't want to tempt fate, but I don't think it's inevitable. I think there is something about the USA that is different - no, I can't explain it. Though, having said that, it happened in Norway a few years ago, and if it can happen there, then it can probably happen anywhere.
Boris' former views on Uganda are very reminiscent of Carlyle, in his debates over race with J S Mill. To the extent that they seem almost to have been inspired by Carlyle. Carlye's views were ripely racist. He also thought that slaves in the West Indies if given the chance would grow nothing but pumpkins to feed themselves, whereas the British were making them grow 'noble' things like spices and sugar cane. Which really had no more nobility except in their ability to make the colonisers lots of money. Carlyle is an extremely odd source of inspiration!
Where Boris is maybe slightly less shaky is in his criticism of the dietary benefit of plantain. But I can't see adding coffee and tabacco improving matters...
Grim news from the US concerning gun crime, but there's some interesting stuff on Wiki concerning homicides and race
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account for the vast majority of, 0.98% unknown race and 0.48% Native American. .
.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Not sure where you are going with this, but surely the number of gun crimes cor political reasons or due to mental health issues. If gun control reduces the latter, isn't that justification enough for it even if it is ineffective against the former? And the relative scales of the two problems doesn't seem particularly relevant.
Disagreeing with the word “slash”. There are lots of good reasons for gun control but it won’t have a major impact on overall homicide numbers
In the US?! You are kidding.
I think the majority of homicides will still occur just by different methods
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
I don't want to tempt fate, but I don't think it's inevitable. I think there is something about the USA that is different - no, I can't explain it. Though, having said that, it happened in Norway a few years ago, and if it can happen there, then it can probably happen anywhere.
And New Zealand. This is a worldwide movement and the right is far too complacent about its role in creating it.
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
You can also kill with stupidity, and you are trying very hard, Charles!
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone ktim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
T obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Knock it off Charles. The US has a level of gun killings more in keeping with a failed State or War Zone than a civilised country.
I hope you are not suggesting there is something peculiar about the people there? They seem fairly normal in most respects.
Gun related killings require motive, opportunity and the availability of guns
Motive and opportunity would remain and different means would be found.
You wouldn’t get splashy spree killings which would clearly be a good thing (although given the context of the gun debate in the US easier to focus on mental health provision)
As Asquith famously said, 'self-government is better than good government.'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
It does seem rather strange for those who are arguing as I am in terms of national sovereignty as a reason for supporting Brexit to then argue in favour of colonialism. Yes it undoubtedly did some good. It also did a great deal of evil. But in the end neither of those are an argument against self determination. For Brexiteers to argue in favour of colonialism is just.. well, weird.
Just to be clear I agree with you and I am certainly not arguing in favour of colonialism.
I am arguing against selective quoting and misrepresentation though.
You are also arguing that you, a white man, are in a position to say what is "good" or "bad" for Africa. How do you get to be the arbiter?
Well if you looked at my original comment it was that the post-colonial history of Africa has not been an “unalloyed success”
I would have thought that’s a relatively uncontroversial judgement and my skin colour has no bearing on it.
In fact I’d go further: you are implying that Africans should not be criticised for events such as the Rwandan genocide. Your infantilisation of them is far more racist than my comment.
Your thrust seemed to be, as in your own words about "unalloyed success" that you were measuring them and to be excluding such moral outrages as the Rwandan genocide, which I am assuming you thought was an unalloyed disaster. You are trying to elide the two bringing up Rwanda whereas I did no such thing.
My thrust was simply that life is more complicated than a colonial / post colonial narrative can support. Some things have gone well in African, others have gone less well.
My objection was to the judgement. By whose measure have they gone well or less well?
How do The Troubles, say, impinge upon our own "unalloyed success" as a nation, or the clearances, or winning the world cup, or is it the case that every nation has many disparate elements which constitute its history and to pass judgement on it as a whole, especially as an outsider, is rather asinine?
Comments
'I've heard more Polish than Welsh here!'
Although we ourselves seem to be testing that to destruction right now.
If @ydoethur's figure of 29% is correct, and Wales's population is 3.125 million, that that would mean nine hundred thou... sod it, about a million Welsh speakers in Wales. Unless something has dramatically changed, I doubt there are a million Polish migrants in Wales. So that looks like an arse-drawer figure.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
May I ask if you share my irritation with dual language names and road signs?
The Italians don't find it necessary to tell English tourists that they are approaching Florence rather than Firenze. Nor do the Germans bother to translate Ausfahrt for us at the exit to motorways. So why do we need telling that Caerdydd is really Cardiff in disguise? And if the English want to call Abertawe something completely diferent, that's our business and we shouldn't require the locals to accommodate our parochialism by putting up helpful hints that it's what we call Swansea. As for Araf, if you need the English translation painted on the roads to tell you what it means, you shouldn't really be driving.
You're in Wales, ffs. Cope with the local anguage or stay at home. No?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_language.
However that of course assumes that there was something so drastically wrong with Boris saying Welsh was 'a weird version of Creole' which I fail to see there is anyway
OK, if you give me the instructions on how to do "hee haw", I'll see what I can do. Although my legs aren't as good as they were. Does it involve lifting?
And there is a trickier problem for PB as a whole. Someone has to break the news to him that Le Pen did not win the first round !
I repeat, for the purposes of pollsters I am a Remainer, regardless of the fact I respect the Leave vote and wish to see Brexit delivered
This is one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/nuon-chea-khmer-rouges-infamous-brother-number-two-dies-at-93/2019/08/04/06d5ecce-b6b7-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story.html
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I've learnt what araf means but road warning signs should be written in a language almost everyone can understand or in both languages. I couldn't read a road warning sign in Welsh beyond that despite living here for decades and there are plenty of others the same.
Arguably English is the local language in large parts.
I am arguing against selective quoting and misrepresentation though.
Look to anyone who voted to leave (@rochdalepioneers has repented) for the creation of this shit. @HYUFD is NOT responsible.
No, you said he personally returned it, and implied it was a snub that showed that he “hated” the UK, whereas it was, in fact, returned by White House staff under a prior arrangement. It was returned, by White House staff, as part of an agreement. If you had said “he didn’t ask for the piece back” you may have had a point but even then it doesn’t show any animus to the UK. He likely didn’t notice it had been there. Reagan didn’t have a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office either and I doubt you are criticising him for that.
Or do you have principles at all? If so you, as a diehard remainer, can't support the policies of the current Conservative Party because you have proven, by your vote to remain in the EU, that you disagree with them.
Time to find another party.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
Well, speaking as someone who was born and raised in Swansea, if I was speaking in Welsh to my father I would refer to it as Abertawe, if speaking in English to my mother then it would be Swansea - the joys of bilingualism eh?
FWIW, I find Johnson's comments on the Welsh language to be snide and condescending, but I would expect no better from him.
The EU referendum resulted in a vote to Leave and that has to be respected to, I do not support refusing to respect a vote to Leave the EU and the fact we are still in the EU when we should have left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
'Aides to Mr Obama were furious after The Daily Telegraph disclosed last week that Mitt Romney planned to restore the Jacob Epstein sculpture to its home under George W Bush from 2001 to 2009.
"I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again," the Republican challenger confirmed at a fund-raiser at London's Mandarin Oriental hotel.
Dan Pfeiffer, the President's communications director, said in a statement that widespread reports of the bust being returned to Britain's embassy in Washington as Mr Obama took office were untrue.
"This is 100 per cent false," Mr Pfeiffer said. "The bust is still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room". Illustrating his statement with a photograph of Mr Obama inspecting it with David Cameron in 2010, he added: "Hopefully this clears things up a bit and prevents folks from making this ridiculous claim again".
British officials were surprised by Mr Pfeiffer's statement and photograph, however, because the bust now resides in the residence of Sir Peter Westmacott, Britain's ambassador to the US.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9436526/White-House-admits-it-did-return-Winston-Churchill-bust-to-Britain.html
Why not ask the people of Abertawe/Swansea what they want to call it, and stick to that? Would save a lot of trouble.
It would take a career-best performance from at least one of Roy, Buttler or Stokes - I don't think any of the other players are even theoretically capable.
I would have thought that’s a relatively uncontroversial judgement and my skin colour has no bearing on it.
In fact I’d go further: you are implying that Africans should not be criticised for events such as the Rwandan genocide. Your infantilisation of them is far more racist than my comment.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.
Yes, I know, I was shocked, too.
It is a cultural thing though. There are countries with guns that dont have America's problems.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
I hope you are not suggesting there is something peculiar about the people there? They seem fairly normal in most respects.
Getting back to the point, it is racist to say that the white man came in and fixed the black man’s diet. That’s what he is saying. It’s a falsehood based on a delusional idea of ethnic superiority, ergo racist.
How do The Troubles, say, impinge upon our own "unalloyed success" as a nation, or the clearances, or winning the world cup, or is it the case that every nation has many disparate elements which constitute its history and to pass judgement on it as a whole, especially as an outsider, is rather asinine?
Claiming that tightening the rules on gun ownership will have no effect is a denial of reality.
Where Boris is maybe slightly less shaky is in his criticism of the dietary benefit of plantain. But I can't see adding coffee and tabacco improving matters...
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
Motive and opportunity would remain and different means would be found.
You wouldn’t get splashy spree killings which would clearly be a good thing (although given the context of the gun debate in the US easier to focus on mental health provision)