For my money all that shows is history is easily twisted by corrupt vested interest groups (the Columbus myth originated with Washington Irving but was seized on by Marxists in the 1960s and that is why it was so widely taught in schools, and is still espoused by Horrible Histories, based on the work of Terry Deary who is an avowed Marxist). Yet it is also quite amusing in its own way.
This isn't meant to sound flippant, but how many people were teaching/advocating heliocentrism in the Middle Ages?
Depends on what you mean by Heliocentrism. Quite a number were expressing doubts about the Ptolemaic theory and the suggestion the earth moved through the heavens was especially popular in the Islamic world. Quite a number of Islamic scholars e.g. Said al Sijzi came up with theories on that basis suggesting the earth moved through space. Grosseteste and Bacon in England seem to have espoused a crude form of it as well based loosely on the work of Aristarchus. So far as I am aware however Copernicus was the first to provide a plausible explained model of it, and Galileo the first to provide partial prove of it.
Very telling that not one of you can provide a satisfactory response to my questions on Syria.
As for Chris Williamson, i hope you all know the real reason why he resigned as the Shadow Fire Minister? And no, don't go looking anywhere in the mainstream press to find out because you simply won't find it.
Mr Williamson has a number of difficulties, not least his historic association with the UCATT trade union. Once again, follow the money.
Is it possible to provide conspiracy theorists such as yourself with satisfactory answers? I doubt it.
I go searching for the evidence and the truth by following the money. It's a shame that so many people don't bother and take their cues from an increasingly discredited mainstream media. It won't be me driving the cycle of lack of confidence in government over the next 3 years, with an enormous sovereign debt crisis (and related pensions crisis). It will be the likes of many PB'ers who have a totally misplaced confidence in the government right now, and one by one they'll see that this government has been lying to us all along over so many different things.
This site is widely read. If you are genuinely on the track of a serious conspiracy, it is overwhelmingly likely that the conspirators will get wind of the fact from your postings here, identify you by hacking the site or blackmailing the admins, and kill you. By posting about your theories, you disprove them. Had you thought that through?
People who I associate with have been threatened whilst trying to uncover this fraud. And people have been murdered such as Scott Young and Brett Kebble thank you very much. And I know people who have lost their life savings thanks to the historic Finchley Road network as well. So I have seen the very real human cost of it all. I hope those people on here who make silly flippant comments about the Finchley Road network will reflect on this post, and not be so crass and stupid going forward.
Thank you.
You think Brett Kebble was murdered because of this?
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I'm looking forward to finding out how a family business was involved. Was first registered at Finchley Road...
How many times do I have to tell you all that Finchley Road is the past. The action has moved on to new addresses after that all got closed down in an enormous panic at the end of February last year. And other non-Finchley Road addresses interlocked to the network got closed down too at different points last year........all verifiable by forensic companies house records. Funny that there was a massive race to slam doors shut very quickly last year if there was nothing dodgy going on don't you think?
And thank goodness that is all in the past, although the new addresses are being chased too and hopefully will be hounded out of business too where they are engaged in fraud, theft and money laundering.
The bit I struggle with is this:
If I wanted to do Nefarious Shit [TM], why would I do it via company house listed entities? It's perfectly possible to set up corporate entities with limited - or non-existant - levels of public disclosure, so why use something where you have to report to Companies House? And if I was reporting to Companies House, then why not simply lie anyway: it's not like the penalties for false disclosure regarding to private companies are severe compared to those for the Nefarious Shit [TM] I was doing?
Personally, were I to plan a world dominating conspiracy with my illuminati friends, I would choose a better HQ. Perhaps a submersible base, or a hollowed out volcano, or space station, if not the European Parliament (ever wonder why there are 2? , nudge nudge).
A shabby North London flat, bought in the Eighties is just a bit gauche for me, Dr Evil and Ernst Blofeld.
Yes, but have you been to that part of (((North London)))...
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I mean Amber Rudd is involved in both isn't she?
That is what always gets me about conspiracy theories (which I have read far too much about, over the years). On the one hand there are these incredibly elaborate multi-decade plots to rule the world involving a cast of thousands, but they are blown wide open by a shitty out-of-focus YouTube video, or something similar.
One of my favourite ever conspiracy theories was the one that said that Barack Obama was simultaneously
a) A Muslim who wanted to turn America into a Muslim state
and
b) Controlled and financed by the Jews/Israel
Even that's not quite as good as Ernst Zundel, who believed the Holocaust had been faked to ensure the Nazi survivors could get on with testing UFOs from their sub-Antarctic base in peace.
On your earlier post, Galileo is also rather a bad example. There is a detailed account of the affair and how it has been misinterpreted in James Hannam's God's Philosophers (not sure if you've ever read that - review here) but to cut to the chase, he agreed with the Inquisition that while the science was contestable to teach it as a theory and then turned around and taught it as a fact. (Also of course he was not buried in unconsecrated ground - I did enjoy one person who made that claim and then followed up, unforgettably, with an account of how moving he found a visit to Santa Croce in Florence to see Galileo's tomb!)
That book looks rather good: I've added it to my Kindle reading list. It'll be my next non-fiction (after Rejoice, Rejoice).
Trying to catch up with the day's events at Westminster and pretty much as might have been expected.
On topic, I don't regard the Russian Government as "evil". The Russian Government is promoting the interests of Russia which seems pretty much what it should be doing. "Evil" is a curious notion which I've been considering of late.
I suppose the definition of evil is a moral outlook antithetical to and diametrically opposed to one's own. Individuals are capable of evil but I'm less certain that's true of Governments even when led by evil individuals. Is Russia evil now, was the USSR evil then ? The USSR wanted to impose its moral and political outlook on the rest of the world but those who believed in such an outlook wouldn't have considered themselves evil but perhaps considered us evil instead.
So we have this notion of "evil" on the same day Theresa May throws around "moral" as justification for the Syrian airstrikes. I would contend there is plenty of justification for the strikes - legal, military, diplomatic, political but moral ? I struggle with this as well - are Governments moral in any sense ?
If I were a Syrian civilian, would my demise from a bullet, artillery shell or barrel bomb be more moral than death by poison gas ?
There are those who argue the only moral position is to oppose violence in all forms. That's not unreasonable if idealistic in the face of those who have no moral objection to the use of violence in the acquisition of objectives and the pursuit of policy.
Could a moral person be evil ? Yes but their morality would be constructed on principles so far removed from mine that there could be no common ground. One tends to think of evil as a form of amorality but I'm not convinced. Many of the most evil people in history were principled and moral in their own eyes - they might even have believed what they were doing was justifiable and could justify it.
It's interesting how once again people seem to be divided along party lines on the Windrush issue. Most on the right believe it's basically an administrative cock-up, whereas many on the left think it has at least something to do with racism and xenophobia.
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I'm looking forward to finding out how a family business was involved. Was first registered at Finchley Road...
How many times do I have to tell you all that Finchley Road is the past. The action has moved on to new addresses after that all got closed down in an enormous panic at the end of February last year. And other non-Finchley Road addresses interlocked to the network got closed down too at different points last year........all verifiable by forensic companies house records. Funny that there was a massive race to slam doors shut very quickly last year if there was nothing dodgy going on don't you think?
And thank goodness that is all in the past, although the new addresses are being chased too and hopefully will be hounded out of business too where they are engaged in fraud, theft and money laundering.
The bit I struggle with is this:
If I wanted to do Nefarious Shit [TM], why would I do it via company house listed entities? It's perfectly possible to set up corporate entities with limited - or non-existant - levels of public disclosure, so why use something where you have to report to Companies House? And if I was reporting to Companies House, then why not simply lie anyway: it's not like the penalties for false disclosure regarding to private companies are severe compared to those for the Nefarious Shit [TM] I was doing?
You
There are a lot of 'interesting' Companies House documents - directors being under false names for starters.
It's the respectable-seeming company directors who are actually lizards that you have to worry about.
The fact that you always bring up this lizard and reptile David Icke nonsense says more about you than anybody else.
I feel that the following two quotes sum up the events of the last few days:-
Albert Camus:
"Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."
Substitute "politicians" for "thinkers" and it sums up Corbyn et al very well.
Or this by the late marvelous Tony Judt:
"Totalitarianism of the Left, much like an earlier totalitarianism of the Right, was about violence and power and control, and it appealed because of these features, not in spite of them."
No wonder people like Corbyn and McDonnell admire the IRA, Putin, Assad and similar violent despots.
Very telling that not one of you can provide a satisfactory response to my questions on Syria.
As for Chris Williamson, i hope you all know the real reason why he resigned as the Shadow Fire Minister? And no, don't go looking anywhere in the mainstream press to find out because you simply won't find it.
Mr Williamson has a number of difficulties, not least his historic association with the UCATT trade union. Once again, follow the money.
Is it possible to provide conspiracy theorists such as yourself with satisfactory answers? I doubt it.
I go searching for the evidence and the truth by following the money. It's a shame that so many people don't bother and take their cues from an increasingly discredited mainstream media. It won't be me driving the cycle of lack of confidence in government over the next 3 years, with an enormous sovereign debt crisis (and related pensions crisis). It will be the likes of many PB'ers who have a totally misplaced confidence in the government right now, and one by one they'll see that this government has been lying to us all along over so many different things.
This site is widely read. If you are genuinely on the track of a serious conspiracy, it is overwhelmingly likely that the conspirators will get wind of the fact from your postings here, identify you by hacking the site or blackmailing the admins, and kill you. By posting about your theories, you disprove them. Had you thought that through?
People who I associate with have been threatened whilst trying to uncover this fraud. And people have been murdered such as Scott Young and Brett Kebble thank you very much. And I know people who have lost their life savings thanks to the historic Finchley Road network as well. So I have seen the very real human cost of it all. I hope those people on here who make silly flippant comments about the Finchley Road network will reflect on this post, and not be so crass and stupid going forward.
Thank you.
You think Brett Kebble was murdered because of this?
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I mean Amber Rudd is involved in both isn't she?
That is what always gets me about conspiracy theories (which I have read far too much about, over the years). On the one hand there are these incredibly elaborate multi-decade plots to rule the world involving a cast of thousands, but they are blown wide open by a shitty out-of-focus YouTube video, or something similar.
One of my favourite ever conspiracy theories was the one that said that Barack Obama was simultaneously
a) A Muslim who wanted to turn America into a Muslim state
and
b) Controlled and financed by the Jews/Israel
That one’s easy:
Radical Islam is controlled and directed by the Jewish Illuminati Lizards because it allows them to justify the repressive actions necessary to protect the hub of their operations in Israel.
Trying to catch up with the day's events at Westminster and pretty much as might have been expected.
On topic, I don't regard the Russian Government as "evil". The Russian Government is promoting the interests of Russia which seems pretty much what it should be doing. "Evil" is a curious notion which I've been considering of late.
I suppose the definition of evil is a moral outlook antithetical to and diametrically opposed to one's own. Individuals are capable of evil but I'm less certain that's true of Governments even when led by evil individuals. Is Russia evil now, was the USSR evil then ? The USSR wanted to impose its moral and political outlook on the rest of the world but those who believed in such an outlook wouldn't have considered themselves evil but perhaps considered us evil instead.
So we have this notion of "evil" on the same day Theresa May throws around "moral" as justification for the Syrian airstrikes. I would contend there is plenty of justification for the strikes - legal, military, diplomatic, political but moral ? I struggle with this as well - are Governments moral in any sense ?
If I were a Syrian civilian, would my demise from a bullet, artillery shell or barrel bomb be more moral than death by poison gas ?
There are those who argue the only moral position is to oppose violence in all forms. That's not unreasonable if idealistic in the face of those who have no moral objection to the use of violence in the acquisition of objectives and the pursuit of policy.
Could a moral person be evil ? Yes but their morality would be constructed on principles so far removed from mine that there could be no common ground. One tends to think of evil as a form of amorality but I'm not convinced. Many of the most evil people in history were principled and moral in their own eyes - they might even have believed what they were doing was justifiable and could justify it.
I certainly think the Russian Government is evil.
Quite aside from its rampant corruption, exploitation of ordinary Russians and aggression, it routinely murders its critics in horrific ways.
I love the introduction to the second edition of Origin of Species, where he lists I think 10 or 15 people who had put forward the theory of natural selection in relatively recent publications, but I don't know of any examples from "long before” Darwin. What did you have in mind?
Your starting point should be Anaximander (d 546 BC) who was the first to put forward an idea that bears a resemblance to the modern theory of evolution although it differs in crucial respects.
Jean Baptiste Lamarck (d. 1829) is also important in developing the theories of how characteristics chance over time, a soft theory of evolution it's sometimes called.
There are many others but those are the two most important ones. Their theories were flawed in crucial ways - and still more flawed in that they couldn't prove them, which Darwin could - but they were out there all right.
Cultural appropriation ffs, what do they think the central purpose of a university is? They need to burn down the Pitt Rivers and the Ashmolean just for starters, and shut down classics and modern languages and all schools of history. And physics must stop with Rutherford, because everything later is stolen from the Swiss Jews. Actually even Rutherford (and Newton) are stolen from the primitive fen folk.
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I mean Amber Rudd is involved in both isn't she?
TSE you're quite right to say how incompetent the government are over Windrush.....but when you've got the likes of Amber Rudd and Caroline Nokes overseeing it then it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
As for Finchley Road, it wasn't the government that oversaw the vast Finchley Road network, it was people with links to the government who then co-opted MPs and members of the House of Lords as non-executive directors taking a cut for themselves whilst being tied to a massive fraud, theft and money laundering network, and hence those politicians became compromised. Again, all verifiable with a forensic examination of Companies House records.
They don't call the City of London the global centre of money laundering for nothing.
How do you know they’re not faking the Companies House records to send you down a rabbit hole?
He described Enoch Powell/The Rivers of Blood speech as a stupid person's idea of someone clever.
To be fair, there’s little doubt that Enoch Powell was cleverer than Matthew Paris, even if he didn’t always get it right.
Even very clever people are capable of being morally stupid. Indeed it is often their Achilles heel. They are more clever, so believe themselves to be superior, and the rot starts there.
Unless you are Matthew Paris, who is the exception to the rule and always right.
It's interesting how once again people seem to be divided along party lines on the Windrush issue. Most on the right believe it's basically an administrative cock-up, whereas many on the left think it has at least something to do with racism and xenophobia.
It's a direct consequence (possibly unintended) of the immigration changes this government has made in recent years.
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I'm looking forward to finding out how a family business was involved. Was first registered at Finchley Road...
How many times do I have to tell you all that Finchley Road is the past. The action has moved on to new addresses after that all got closed down in an enormous panic at the end of February last year. And other non-Finchley Road addresses interlocked to the network got closed down too at different points last year........all verifiable by forensic companies house records. Funny that there was a massive race to slam doors shut very quickly last year if there was nothing dodgy going on don't you think?
And thank goodness that is all in the past, although the new addresses are being chased too and hopefully will be hounded out of business too where they are engaged in fraud, theft and money laundering.
The bit I struggle with is this:
If I wanted to do Nefarious Shit [TM], why would I do it via company house listed entities? It's perfectly possible to set up corporate entities with limited - or non-existant - levels of public disclosure, so why use something where you have to report to Companies House? And if I was reporting to Companies House, then why not simply lie anyway: it's not like the penalties for false disclosure regarding to private companies are severe compared to those for the Nefarious Shit [TM] I was doing?
As I said, so very smart to pull off their Nefarious Shit™, but stupid enough to bungle some of the basic stuff and get caught by YouTube warriors.
I tried using sup tags for my TM, but they didn't work
He described Enoch Powell/The Rivers of Blood speech as a stupid person's idea of someone clever.
To be fair, there’s little doubt that Enoch Powell was cleverer than Matthew Paris, even if he didn’t always get it right.
Even very clever people are capable of being morally stupid. Indeed it is often their Achilles heel. They are more clever, so believe themselves to be superior, and the rot starts there.
Unless you are Matthew Paris, who is the exception to the rule and always right.
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I mean Amber Rudd is involved in both isn't she?
That is what always gets me about conspiracy theories (which I have read far too much about, over the years). On the one hand there are these incredibly elaborate multi-decade plots to rule the world involving a cast of thousands, but they are blown wide open by a shitty out-of-focus YouTube video, or something similar.
One of my favourite ever conspiracy theories was the one that said that Barack Obama was simultaneously
a) A Muslim who wanted to turn America into a Muslim state
and
b) Controlled and financed by the Jews/Israel
Even that's not quite as good as Ernst Zundel, who believed the Holocaust had been faked to ensure the Nazi survivors could get on with testing UFOs from their sub-Antarctic base in peace.
On your earlier post, Galileo is also rather a bad example. There is a detailed account of the affair and how it has been misinterpreted in James Hannam's God's Philosophers (not sure if you've ever read that - review here) but to cut to the chase, he agreed with the Inquisition that while the science was contestable to teach it as a theory and then turned around and taught it as a fact. (Also of course he was not buried in unconsecrated ground - I did enjoy one person who made that claim and then followed up, unforgettably, with an account of how moving he found a visit to Santa Croce in Florence to see Galileo's tomb!)
OK but what people think happened to Galileo, actually happened to Giordano Bruno.
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I'm looking forward to finding out how a family business was involved. Was first registered at Finchley Road...
How many times do I have to tell you all that Finchley Road is the past. The action has moved on to new addresses after that all got closed down in an enormous panic at the end of February last year. And other non-Finchley Road addresses interlocked to the network got closed down too at different points last year........all verifiable by forensic companies house records. Funny that there was a massive race to slam doors shut very quickly last year if there was nothing dodgy going on don't you think?
And thank goodness that is all in the past, although the new addresses are being chased too and hopefully will be hounded out of business too where they are engaged in fraud, theft and money laundering.
The bit I struggle with is this:
If I wanted to do Nefarious Shit [TM], why would I do it via company house listed entities? It's perfectly possible to set up corporate entities with limited - or non-existant - levels of public disclosure, so why use something where you have to report to Companies House? And if I was reporting to Companies House, then why not simply lie anyway: it's not like the penalties for false disclosure regarding to private companies are severe compared to those for the Nefarious Shit [TM] I was doing?
As I said, so very smart to pull off their Nefarious Shit™, but stupid enough to bungle some of the basic stuff and get caught by YouTube warriors.
I tried using sup tags for my TM, but they didn't work
Cultural appropriation ffs, what do they think the central purpose of a university is? They need to burn down the Pitt Rivers and the Ashmolean just for starters...
How very dare you. Those are two of my favourite museums.
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I mean Amber Rudd is involved in both isn't she?
That is what always gets me about conspiracy theories (which I have read far too much about, over the years). On the one hand there are these incredibly elaborate multi-decade plots to rule the world involving a cast of thousands, but they are blown wide open by a shitty out-of-focus YouTube video, or something similar.
One of my favourite ever conspiracy theories was the one that said that Barack Obama was simultaneously
a) A Muslim who wanted to turn America into a Muslim state
and
b) Controlled and financed by the Jews/Israel
Even that's not quite as good as Ernst Zundel, who believed the Holocaust had been faked to ensure the Nazi survivors could get on with testing UFOs from their sub-Antarctic base in peace.
On your earlier post, Galileo is also rather a bad example. There is a detailed account of the affair and how it has been misinterpreted in James Hannam's God's Philosophers (not sure if you've ever read that - review here) but to cut to the chase, he agreed with the Inquisition that while the science was contestable to teach it as a theory and then turned around and taught it as a fact. (Also of course he was not buried in unconsecrated ground - I did enjoy one person who made that claim and then followed up, unforgettably, with an account of how moving he found a visit to Santa Croce in Florence to see Galileo's tomb!)
OK but what people think happened to Galileo, actually happened to Giordano Bruno.
The Immigration Act 2016 was avowedly and expressly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. According to the government's website it was intended to: •introduce new sanctions on illegal workers and rogue employers •provide better co-ordination of regulators that enforce workers’ rights •prevent illegal migrants in the UK from accessing housing, driving licences and bank accounts •introduce new measures to make it easier to enforce immigration laws and remove illegal migrants So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence.
This policy, driven by Mrs May whilst Home Secretary, was designed to achieve Dave's slightly daft and optimistic "tens of thousands" pledge. It has inevitably caught up an endless supply of people who have been here for a very long time, many of whom have difficulty in explaining the legal basis on which they came here in the first place and cannot prove continuous occupation.
The Windrush situation is just the latest manifestation of this deeply illiberal piece of legislation of which we should be properly ashamed. It is a vicious alternative to the correct approach which was to deal with the backlogs that paralyse our immigration system by widespread and comprehensive amnesties combined with much more rigorous enforcement going forward.
The government really deserves all the flack it is going to get for this.
Cultural appropriation ffs, what do they think the central purpose of a university is? They need to burn down the Pitt Rivers and the Ashmolean just for starters...
How very dare you. Those are two of my favourite museums.
Yes mine too, but if you were opposed to cultural appropriation, how could you sleep at night while they still stood?
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I'm looking forward to finding out how a family business was involved. Was first registered at Finchley Road...
How many times do I have to tell you all that Finchley Road is the past. The action has moved on to new addresses after that all got closed down in an enormous panic at the end of February last year. And other non-Finchley Road addresses interlocked to the network got closed down too at different points last year........all verifiable by forensic companies house records. Funny that there was a massive race to slam doors shut very quickly last year if there was nothing dodgy going on don't you think?
And thank goodness that is all in the past, although the new addresses are being chased too and hopefully will be hounded out of business too where they are engaged in fraud, theft and money laundering.
The bit I struggle with is this:
If I wanted to do Nefarious Shit [TM], why would I do it via company house listed entities? It's perfectly possible to set up corporate entities with limited - or non-existant - levels of public disclosure, so why use something where you have to report to Companies House? And if I was reporting to Companies House, then why not simply lie anyway: it's not like the penalties for false disclosure regarding to private companies are severe compared to those for the Nefarious Shit [TM] I was doing?
As I said, so very smart to pull off their Nefarious Shit™, but stupid enough to bungle some of the basic stuff and get caught by YouTube warriors.
I tried using sup tags for my TM, but they didn't work
What did you use?
Gboard for Android!
My Macbook annoyingly turns Tessa's intitials into a ™ every time
Cultural appropriation ffs, what do they think the central purpose of a university is? They need to burn down the Pitt Rivers and the Ashmolean just for starters...
How very dare you. Those are two of my favourite museums.
Yes mine too, but if you were opposed to cultural appropriation, how could you sleep at night while they still stood?
I would have also focussed on the Scopes Monkey trial.
Inherit The Wind and To Kill A Mockingbird are the movies/books that got me hooked on the law at a young age.
The strange thing about many of the old science vs religion tropes is that many of them actually originated in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, which was meant to be the high point of scientific endeavour.
For example, how many flat-earthers were there in the Middle Ages? None, so far as can be judged. As befitted students of Aristotle, they thought the world was spherical and from the work of Eratosthenes gave them a fair idea of its size. The gorgeous irony of Columbus is he was wrong and everyone else was right. They said it was too far to sail Westward to Japan and China, he disagreed. He was wrong and would have died if he hadn't landed in Central America. But there were flat earthers in the late nineteenth century - Paul Kruger is the most famous example I can think of, but doubtless there were others. Bear in mind, his was at a time when the world trade routes relied on planets being spherical, and therefore flew in the face of all sanity. Kruger is said to have once told a mariner he couldn't have sailed around the world because the world was flat!
For my money all that shows is history is easily twisted by corrupt vested interest groups (the Columbus myth originated with Washington Irving but was seized on by Marxists in the 1960s and that is why it was so widely taught in schools, and is still espoused by Horrible Histories, based on the work of Terry Deary who is an avowed Marxist). Yet it is also quite amusing in its own way.
I love the introduction to the second edition of Origin of Species, where he lists I think 10 or 15 people who had put forward the theory of natural selection in relatively recent publications, but I don't know of any examples from "long before” Darwin. What did you have in mind?
Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin came up with some ideas on evolution in the 18th century although his work is not very well known.
The Immigration Act 2016 was avowedly and expressly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. According to the government's website it was intended to: •introduce new sanctions on illegal workers and rogue employers •provide better co-ordination of regulators that enforce workers’ rights •prevent illegal migrants in the UK from accessing housing, driving licences and bank accounts •introduce new measures to make it easier to enforce immigration laws and remove illegal migrants So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence.
This policy, driven by Mrs May whilst Home Secretary, was designed to achieve Dave's slightly daft and optimistic "tens of thousands" pledge. It has inevitably caught up an endless supply of people who have been here for a very long time, many of whom have difficulty in explaining the legal basis on which they came here in the first place and cannot prove continuous occupation.
The Windrush situation is just the latest manifestation of this deeply illiberal piece of legislation of which we should be properly ashamed. It is a vicious alternative to the correct approach which was to deal with the backlogs that paralyse our immigration system by widespread and comprehensive amnesties combined with much more rigorous enforcement going forward.
The government really deserves all the flack it is going to get for this.
The Immigration Act 2016 was avowedly and expressly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. According to the government's website it was intended to: •introduce new sanctions on illegal workers and rogue employers •provide better co-ordination of regulators that enforce workers’ rights •prevent illegal migrants in the UK from accessing housing, driving licences and bank accounts •introduce new measures to make it easier to enforce immigration laws and remove illegal migrants So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence.
This policy, driven by Mrs May whilst Home Secretary, was designed to achieve Dave's slightly daft and optimistic "tens of thousands" pledge. It has inevitably caught up an endless supply of people who have been here for a very long time, many of whom have difficulty in explaining the legal basis on which they came here in the first place and cannot prove continuous occupation.
The Windrush situation is just the latest manifestation of this deeply illiberal piece of legislation of which we should be properly ashamed. It is a vicious alternative to the correct approach which was to deal with the backlogs that paralyse our immigration system by widespread and comprehensive amnesties combined with much more rigorous enforcement going forward.
The government really deserves all the flack it is going to get for this.
Agreed. Those blaming the bureaucrats are passing the buck.
(Not that said bureaucrats are utterly without blame...)
It's interesting how once again people seem to be divided along party lines on the Windrush issue. Most on the right believe it's basically an administrative cock-up, whereas many on the left think it has at least something to do with racism and xenophobia.
It's a direct consequence (possibly unintended) of the immigration changes this government has made in recent years.
It's interesting how once again people seem to be divided along party lines on the Windrush issue. Most on the right believe it's basically an administrative cock-up, whereas many on the left think it has at least something to do with racism and xenophobia.
It's a direct consequence (possibly unintended) of the immigration changes this government has made in recent years.
Quite aside from its rampant corruption, exploitation of ordinary Russians and aggression, it routinely murders its critics in horrific ways.
Define "corruption" - it doesn't equate to evil per se. We've had corruption here, so has America, so indeed have most countries and in many parts of the world it's endemic. It's how things are done - we don't approve of it but it's not evil in and of itself.
"Exploitation of ordinary Russians" - there are those who consider capitalism exploitative. What does exploitation mean - excessive taxation might be considered exploitation.
"Aggression" - arguably Russia has been expansionist since Peter the Great. Has it been evil for over 300 years ? Was it evil when it drove back the Nazis ?
"Murders its critics" - I agree it's distasteful and abhorrent but the Russians are far from alone in that. I do agree accepting and being open to criticism is a strength and virtue of a civilised society but plenty aren't. Are they all evil ?
I accept the Russian way of doing things as antithetical to how we purport to operate but throwing words like "evil" around doesn't help. It's part and parcel of a tactic of demonisation we saw in the Cold War. We are being taught again to see the Russians as monsters, bereft of humanity, determined on the single goal of our subjugation.
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I mean Amber Rudd is involved in both isn't she?
That is what always gets me about conspiracy theories (which I have read far too much about, over the years). On the one hand there are these incredibly elaborate multi-decade plots to rule the world involving a cast of thousands, but they are blown wide open by a shitty out-of-focus YouTube video, or something similar.
One of my favourite ever conspiracy theories was the one that said that Barack Obama was simultaneously
a) A Muslim who wanted to turn America into a Muslim state
and
b) Controlled and financed by the Jews/Israel
Even that's not quite as good as Ernst Zundel, who believed the Holocaust had been faked to ensure the Nazi survivors could get on with testing UFOs from their sub-Antarctic base in peace.
On your earlier post, Galileo is also rather a bad example. There is a detailed account of the affair and how it has been misinterpreted in James Hannam's God's Philosophers (not sure if you've ever read that - review here) but to cut to the chase, he agreed with the Inquisition that while the science was contestable to teach it as a theory and then turned around and taught it as a fact. (Also of course he was not buried in unconsecrated ground - I did enjoy one person who made that claim and then followed up, unforgettably, with an account of how moving he found a visit to Santa Croce in Florence to see Galileo's tomb!)
OK but what people think happened to Galileo, actually happened to Giordano Bruno.
The Immigration Act 2016 was avowedly and expressly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. According to the government's website it was intended to: •introduce new sanctions on illegal workers and rogue employers •provide better co-ordination of regulators that enforce workers’ rights •prevent illegal migrants in the UK from accessing housing, driving licences and bank accounts •introduce new measures to make it easier to enforce immigration laws and remove illegal migrants So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence.
This policy, driven by Mrs May whilst Home Secretary, was designed to achieve Dave's slightly daft and optimistic "tens of thousands" pledge. It has inevitably caught up an endless supply of people who have been here for a very long time, many of whom have difficulty in explaining the legal basis on which they came here in the first place and cannot prove continuous occupation.
The Windrush situation is just the latest manifestation of this deeply illiberal piece of legislation of which we should be properly ashamed. It is a vicious alternative to the correct approach which was to deal with the backlogs that paralyse our immigration system by widespread and comprehensive amnesties combined with much more rigorous enforcement going forward.
The government really deserves all the flack it is going to get for this.
TMay as home secretary was way too illiberal and authoritarian for my liking.
It's interesting how once again people seem to be divided along party lines on the Windrush issue. Most on the right believe it's basically an administrative cock-up, whereas many on the left think it has at least something to do with racism and xenophobia.
It's a direct consequence (possibly unintended) of the immigration changes this government has made in recent years.
Yes although those changes were mainly brought in to deal with new migrants, not people who came here many decades ago.
If it’s an unintended consequence, then both ministers and their advisers have been deeply stupid for some time.
In previous times common sense would have prevailed and the changes wouldn't have been used to target the Windrush generation, but these days things like this have to be applied in a rigid technocratic way that doesn't leave any room for discretion.
The Immigration Act 2016 was avowedly and expressly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. According to the government's website it was intended to: •introduce new sanctions on illegal workers and rogue employers •provide better co-ordination of regulators that enforce workers’ rights •prevent illegal migrants in the UK from accessing housing, driving licences and bank accounts •introduce new measures to make it easier to enforce immigration laws and remove illegal migrants So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence.
This policy, driven by Mrs May whilst Home Secretary, was designed to achieve Dave's slightly daft and optimistic "tens of thousands" pledge. It has inevitably caught up an endless supply of people who have been here for a very long time, many of whom have difficulty in explaining the legal basis on which they came here in the first place and cannot prove continuous occupation.
The Windrush situation is just the latest manifestation of this deeply illiberal piece of legislation of which we should be properly ashamed. It is a vicious alternative to the correct approach which was to deal with the backlogs that paralyse our immigration system by widespread and comprehensive amnesties combined with much more rigorous enforcement going forward.
The government really deserves all the flack it is going to get for this.
Widespread and comprehensive amnesties now simply result in widespread and comprehensive amnesties in future.
It's interesting how once again people seem to be divided along party lines on the Windrush issue. Most on the right believe it's basically an administrative cock-up, whereas many on the left think it has at least something to do with racism and xenophobia.
It's a direct consequence (possibly unintended) of the immigration changes this government has made in recent years.
Quite aside from its rampant corruption, exploitation of ordinary Russians and aggression, it routinely murders its critics in horrific ways.
Define "corruption" - it doesn't equate to evil per se. We've had corruption here, so has America, so indeed have most countries and in many parts of the world it's endemic. It's how things are done - we don't approve of it but it's not evil in and of itself.
"Exploitation of ordinary Russians" - there are those who consider capitalism exploitative. What does exploitation mean - excessive taxation might be considered exploitation.
"Aggression" - arguably Russia has been expansionist since Peter the Great. Has it been evil for over 300 years ? Was it evil when it drove back the Nazis ?
"Murders its critics" - I agree it's distasteful and abhorrent but the Russians are far from alone in that. I do agree accepting and being open to criticism is a strength and virtue of a civilised society but plenty aren't. Are they all evil ?
I accept the Russian way of doing things as antithetical to how we purport to operate but throwing words like "evil" around doesn't help. It's part and parcel of a tactic of demonisation we saw in the Cold War. We are being taught again to see the Russians as monsters, bereft of humanity, determined on the single goal of our subjugation.
The Immigration Act 2016 was avowedly and expressly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. According to the government's website it was intended to: •introduce new sanctions on illegal workers and rogue employers •provide better co-ordination of regulators that enforce workers’ rights •prevent illegal migrants in the UK from accessing housing, driving licences and bank accounts •introduce new measures to make it easier to enforce immigration laws and remove illegal migrants So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence.
This policy, driven by Mrs May whilst Home Secretary, was designed to achieve Dave's slightly daft and optimistic "tens of thousands" pledge. It has inevitably caught up an endless supply of people who have been here for a very long time, many of whom have difficulty in explaining the legal basis on which they came here in the first place and cannot prove continuous occupation.
The Windrush situation is just the latest manifestation of this deeply illiberal piece of legislation of which we should be properly ashamed. It is a vicious alternative to the correct approach which was to deal with the backlogs that paralyse our immigration system by widespread and comprehensive amnesties combined with much more rigorous enforcement going forward.
The government really deserves all the flack it is going to get for this.
Widespread and comprehensive amnesties now simply result in widespread and comprehensive amnesties in future.
That is always a risk which is why you need to have more rigorous enforcement going forward. Too often people have behaved as if amnesties solve the problem. They really don't. In fact I agree that they can aggravate it by creating a greater pull factor. But our immigration system broke down decades ago, simply overwhelmed by the numbers. We need a clean slate. And the legislation is a disgrace.
Quite aside from its rampant corruption, exploitation of ordinary Russians and aggression, it routinely murders its critics in horrific ways.
Define "corruption" - it doesn't equate to evil per se. We've had corruption here, so has America, so indeed have most countries and in many parts of the world it's endemic. It's how things are done - we don't approve of it but it's not evil in and of itself.
"Exploitation of ordinary Russians" - there are those who consider capitalism exploitative. What does exploitation mean - excessive taxation might be considered exploitation.
"Aggression" - arguably Russia has been expansionist since Peter the Great. Has it been evil for over 300 years ? Was it evil when it drove back the Nazis ?
"Murders its critics" - I agree it's distasteful and abhorrent but the Russians are far from alone in that. I do agree accepting and being open to criticism is a strength and virtue of a civilised society but plenty aren't. Are they all evil ?
I accept the Russian way of doing things as antithetical to how we purport to operate but throwing words like "evil" around doesn't help. It's part and parcel of a tactic of demonisation we saw in the Cold War. We are being taught again to see the Russians as monsters, bereft of humanity, determined on the single goal of our subjugation.
It was absurd then, it's absurd now.
It's fair to describe Russian government as evil. It does not follow that most Russians are evil.
The Immigration Act 2016 was avowedly and expressly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. According to the government's website it was intended to: •introduce new sanctions on illegal workers and rogue employers •provide better co-ordination of regulators that enforce workers’ rights •prevent illegal migrants in the UK from accessing housing, driving licences and bank accounts •introduce new measures to make it easier to enforce immigration laws and remove illegal migrants So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence.
This policy, driven by Mrs May whilst Home Secretary, was designed to achieve Dave's slightly daft and optimistic "tens of thousands" pledge. It has inevitably caught up an endless supply of people who have been here for a very long time, many of whom have difficulty in explaining the legal basis on which they came here in the first place and cannot prove continuous occupation.
The Windrush situation is just the latest manifestation of this deeply illiberal piece of legislation of which we should be properly ashamed. It is a vicious alternative to the correct approach which was to deal with the backlogs that paralyse our immigration system by widespread and comprehensive amnesties combined with much more rigorous enforcement going forward.
The government really deserves all the flack it is going to get for this.
Good post. I think Windrush is actually going to be the tip of the Iceberg.
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I mean Amber Rudd is involved in both isn't she?
TSE you're quite right to say how incompetent the government are over Windrush.....but when you've got the likes of Amber Rudd and Caroline Nokes overseeing it then it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
As for Finchley Road, it wasn't the government that oversaw the vast Finchley Road network, it was people with links to the government who then co-opted MPs and members of the House of Lords as non-executive directors taking a cut for themselves whilst being tied to a massive fraud, theft and money laundering network, and hence those politicians became compromised. Again, all verifiable with a forensic examination of Companies House records.
They don't call the City of London the global centre of money laundering for nothing.
How do you know they’re not faking the Companies House records to send you down a rabbit hole?
Trying to catch up with the day's events at Westminster and pretty much as might have been expected.
On topic, I don't regard the Russian Government as "evil". The Russian Government is promoting the interests of Russia which seems pretty much what it should be doing. "Evil" is a curious notion which I've been considering of late.
I'm sorry, but is that true?
1. It's clear where the priorities of a government lie, where the principals enrich themselves to the tune of perhaps $50bn
2. The glory of Russia and the good of the Russian people are two separate things. I think Mr Putin, after concentrating on his primary goal (remaining in power) and his secondary goal (enriching himself), is concerned only with the nebulous glory of Russia. Countries where the government is focused on the wellbeing of the population (Switzerland, Canada and Australia all spring to mind) should be the ones who should be lauded.
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I'm looking forward to finding out how a family business was involved. Was first registered at Finchley Road...
How many times do I have to tell you all that Finchley Road is the past. The action has moved on to new addresses after that all got closed down in an enormous panic at the end of February last year. And other non-Finchley Road addresses interlocked to the network got closed down too at different points last year........all verifiable by forensic companies house records. Funny that there was a massive race to slam doors shut very quickly last year if there was nothing dodgy going on don't you think?
And thank goodness that is all in the past, although the new addresses are being chased too and hopefully will be hounded out of business too where they are engaged in fraud, theft and money laundering.
The bit I struggle with is this:
If I wanted to do Nefarious Shit [TM], why would I do it via company house listed entities? It's perfectly possible to set up corporate entities with limited - or non-existant - levels of public disclosure, so why use something where you have to report to Companies House? And if I was reporting to Companies House, then why not simply lie anyway: it's not like the penalties for false disclosure regarding to private companies are severe compared to those for the Nefarious Shit [TM] I was doing?
As I said, so very smart to pull off their Nefarious Shit™, but stupid enough to bungle some of the basic stuff and get caught by YouTube warriors.
I tried using sup tags for my TM, but they didn't work
What did you use?
Gboard for Android!
Ah ha, you pasted the Unicode. Let me see™ if this works...
Theresa May has come through this strengthened - Corbyn weakened
But the big question is where is McDonnell - haven't seen him for weeks and didnt even see him in the HOC today
May had a good day , tarnished by windrush ,which led all the bulletens on the main news.
The BBC News report on the Syria debate managed to avoid mentioning that Corbyn received very little support from his own MPs.
Well, in fairness that he lacks support among his MPs isn't exactly breaking news
True , that is nearly 3 years old .Even the great Tony had his rebellious MPs.However it did not matter with 179 Maj..Nevertheless the MSM at the time always gave people like Ken Livingstone a voice.How times change.
A key figure in the campaign to take Britain out of the EU has privately acknowledged that they deliberately used “outrageous” and “provocative” tactics to keep immigration at the top of the referendum debate.
Speaking to an academic researcher, Andy Wigmore appeared to compare the process to the “very clever” propaganda techniques of the Nazis.
Mr Wigmore was communications director for the Leave.EU campaign fronted by then Ukip leader Nigel Farage and funded by millionaire Arron Banks.
His comments were described as “particularly concerning” by Damian Collins, the chairman of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the phenomenon of “fake news”.
Theresa May has come through this strengthened - Corbyn weakened
But the big question is where is McDonnell - haven't seen him for weeks and didnt even see him in the HOC today
May had a good day , tarnished by windrush ,which led all the bulletens on the main news.
Didn't lead on Sky just now - Syria debate was first item
But I have said all day how I condemn the Windrush scandal and even think Amber Rudd is on shaky ground
Faisal Islam (yes Faisal) said that the thing to take from today's debates was that TM did well but more important is that she has retained the executive power on this if she ever needed it
The Immigration Act 2016 was avowedly and expressly designed to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. According to the government's website it was intended to: •introduce new sanctions on illegal workers and rogue employers •provide better co-ordination of regulators that enforce workers’ rights •prevent illegal migrants in the UK from accessing housing, driving licences and bank accounts •introduce new measures to make it easier to enforce immigration laws and remove illegal migrants So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence.
This policy, driven by Mrs May whilst Home Secretary, was designed to achieve Dave's slightly daft and optimistic "tens of thousands" pledge. It has inevitably caught up an endless supply of people who have been here for a very long time, many of whom have difficulty in explaining the legal basis on which they came here in the first place and cannot prove continuous occupation.
The Windrush situation is just the latest manifestation of this deeply illiberal piece of legislation of which we should be properly ashamed. It is a vicious alternative to the correct approach which was to deal with the backlogs that paralyse our immigration system by widespread and comprehensive amnesties combined with much more rigorous enforcement going forward.
The government really deserves all the flack it is going to get for this.
Widespread and comprehensive amnesties now simply result in widespread and comprehensive amnesties in future.
My view is that immigration law - like drug and prostitution law - is the wrong way around.
If you want to stop drug use, criminalise the users. If you want to stop prostitution, criminalise the johns. If you want to stop illegal immigration, criminalise employing illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants come here because there is a large black market, where there are no checks on status. If you come and wash up in a kitchen in Brick Lane, and are paid in cash, no one knows if you are supposed to be here or not. And all too often fines are derisory.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
... So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence...
But they couldn't get work before that Act came into force either. And probably not benefits (or, if they could, government policy hasn't been joined up since 2006, which admittedly would not be a surprise).
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
Widespread and comprehensive amnesties now simply result in widespread and comprehensive amnesties in future.
My view is that immigration law - like drug and prostitution law - is the wrong way around.
If you want to stop drug use, criminalise the users. If you want to stop prostitution, criminalise the johns. If you want to stop illegal immigration, criminalise employing illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants come here because there is a large black market, where there are no checks on status. If you come and wash up in a kitchen in Brick Lane, and are paid in cash, no one knows if you are supposed to be here or not. And all too often fines are derisory.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
Replying to myself:
This is also what is so disingenuous about Trump's border wall. The US has almost *no* penalties for people who employ workers illegally, because all too many political donors benefit from it - whether its their maid, the construction workers on a Trump building, or the people picking crops in California.
Illegal immigrants come to the US because there is demand for their labour. Criminalise employing people illegally, and that demand will drop.
I would have also focussed on the Scopes Monkey trial.
Inherit The Wind and To Kill A Mockingbird are the movies/books that got me hooked on the law at a young age.
The strange thing about many of the old science vs religion tropes is that many of them actually originated in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, which was meant to be the high point of scientific endeavour.
For example, how many flat-earthers were there in the Middle Ages? None, so far as can be judged. As befitted students of Aristotle, they thought the world was spherical and from the work of Eratosthenes gave them a fair idea of its size. The gorgeous irony of Columbus is he was wrong and everyone else was right. They said it was too far to sail Westward to Japan and China, he disagreed. He was wrong and would have died if he hadn't landed in Central America. But there were flat earthers in the late nineteenth century - Paul Kruger is the most famous example I can think of, but doubtless there were others. Bear in mind, his was at a time when the world trade routes relied on planets being spherical, and therefore flew in the face of all sanity. Kruger is said to have once told a mariner he couldn't have sailed around the world because the world was flat!
Similarly, on evolution, it was actually quite a widespread theory long before Darwin. Again, it was a Greek idea in rather crude form. His own uncle espoused it. What Darwin did was provide evidence for it. Bizarrely the bitterest attacks on him came not from theologians but from other scientists (how many people know that Samuel Wilberforce was a distinguished mathematician and a senior Fellow of the Royal Society)? But it also pushed more people towards biblical literalism, as did the pseudo-scholarly Draper-White conflict thesis (actually based mostly on Protestant polemics). Of course, you always had the odd idiot like James Ussher, but they achieve fame precisely because they were actually quite rare. There are far more six day creationists around now than there have ever been.
For my money all that shows is history is easily twisted by corrupt vested interest groups (the Columbus myth originated with Washington Irving but was seized on by Marxists in the 1960s and that is why it was so widely taught in schools, and is still espoused by Horrible Histories, based on the work of Terry Deary who is an avowed Marxist). Yet it is also quite amusing in its own way.
Maybe it's not so strange when you consider that that was the time when mass literacy first came about.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
If he is genuinely fit, he should be considered for the World Cup.
Joe Hart, on the other hand, should be available to do some more Head and Shoulders commercials.
If Carroll is included in the England squad, I'll change my mind and support Big_G's suggestion of a boycott!
Dont tell Foxy
And on Windrush - utterly dreadful and Amber Rudd will be lucky to keep her job. I am ashamed that we could be even thinking of these deportations
I am no fan of taking crocked players, having seen a bit too much of it in past England squads, but if we are going to build a system centered on Kane, we do need a back up for that role. Vardy is a very different style of striker. If he stays fit (!!) then he should be up for consideration.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
That is exactly what the government has done.
Yet, the local car wash in Hampstead is still entirely staffed by Albanians. Who - I presume - came here on tourist visas and did not return.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
I suspect those people, who simply used "references" to get passports will be fine.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
That is exactly what the government has done.
Yet, the local car wash in Hampstead is still entirely staffed by Albanians. Who - I presume - came here on tourist visas and did not return.
The employer can get up to 5 years in jail and an unlimited fine.
Debate still going on with shouty Corbyn winding up to silence and TM has just rose to conclude the debate to a huge cheer. She has been answering questions since 4.00 pm . That takes some stamina
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
That is exactly what the government has done.
Yet, the local car wash in Hampstead is still entirely staffed by Albanians. Who - I presume - came here on tourist visas and did not return.
The employer can get up to 5 years in jail and an unlimited fine.
How much more draconian do you want it to be?
Sounds perfectly reasonable. How many employers have gone to prison?
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
Also, many travelled as dependents on parents passports, as indeed happened into the 1980s.
If he is genuinely fit, he should be considered for the World Cup.
Joe Hart, on the other hand, should be available to do some more Head and Shoulders commercials.
If Carroll is included in the England squad, I'll change my mind and support Big_G's suggestion of a boycott!
Dont tell Foxy
And on Windrush - utterly dreadful and Amber Rudd will be lucky to keep her job. I am ashamed that we could be even thinking of these deportations
I am no fan of taking crocked players, having seen a bit too much of it in past England squads, but if we are going to build a system centered on Kane, we do need a back up for that role. Vardy is a very different style of striker. If he stays fit (!!) then he should be up for consideration.
Debate still going on with shouty Corbyn winding up to silence and TM has just rose to conclude the debate to a huge cheer. She has been answering questions since 4.00 pm . That takes some stamina
Seriously, they've still been going all this time? Jesus. Longest meeting I've done was around six hours, and all I had to do was take notes, and it was still knackering.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
I think the point here is that successive British governments, over 50 years, have been extremely sloppy about who has the right to live and work here. It's blown up now because the current government is trying to be less sloppy, but I don't see why the process can't be made dramatically simpler. Again who's got a record of National Insurance payments shouldn't need to do anything, for a starter.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
The obvious answer is that there is a bit of a misrepresentation in perception that EVERY member of the Windrush generation is facing deportation. When the reality is presumably that there is are a proportion of the Windrush generation who lack documentary evidence relating to their arrival in the country and have inadvertently been caught up in the application of legislation that was never intended to apply to them. Whereas it is, presumably, intended in part to apply to those who might try to claim to be part of the Windrush generation if it helps their chances of securing residency status.
Debate still going on with shouty Corbyn winding up to silence and TM has just rose to conclude the debate to a huge cheer. She has been answering questions since 4.00 pm . That takes some stamina
Seriously, they've still been going all this time? Jesus. Longest meeting I've done was around six hours, and all I had to do was take notes, and it was still knackering.
I am watching Theresa live on Parliament channel now.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
That is exactly what the government has done.
Yet, the local car wash in Hampstead is still entirely staffed by Albanians. Who - I presume - came here on tourist visas and did not return.
Aside from the illegal immigration issue I wonder how many employment and tax laws are being broken at that car wash.
(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: Theresa May took apart Corbyn’s arguments earlier in the day. So he decided he’d have another go. Shes currently taking him apart a second time. Not entirely sure what he thinks he’s doing.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
Apparently many of them don't have British passports. I think that was because the places in the Caribbean they came from were still effectively part of the UK so they wouldn't have needed them to move to the UK.
I think the point here is that successive British governments, over 50 years, have been extremely sloppy about who has the right to live and work here. It's blown up now because the current government is trying to be less sloppy, but I don't see why the process can't be made dramatically simpler. Again who's got a record of National Insurance payments shouldn't need to do anything, for a starter.
An obvious solution would be to only apply the legislation to anyone who came here less than say 20 years ago.
Debate still going on with shouty Corbyn winding up to silence and TM has just rose to conclude the debate to a huge cheer. She has been answering questions since 4.00 pm . That takes some stamina
Seriously, they've still been going all this time? Jesus. Longest meeting I've done was around six hours, and all I had to do was take notes, and it was still knackering.
I am watching Theresa live on Parliament channel now.
I know there are very different systems, but I do like that, occasionally, our PMs have to get stuck in to some lengthy, difficult back and forth on the floor of a legislative chamber like anyone else.
How come the government that can oversee that vast conspiracy at Finchley Road which only PBers are aware of can make a complete Horlicks over the Windrush generation?
I mean Amber Rudd is involved in both isn't she?
That is what always gets me about conspiracy theories (which I have read far too much about, over the years). On the one hand there are these incredibly elaborate multi-decade plots to rule the world involving a cast of thousands, but they are blown wide open by a shitty out-of-focus YouTube video, or something similar.
One of my favourite ever conspiracy theories was the one that said that Barack Obama was simultaneously
a) A Muslim who wanted to turn America into a Muslim state
and
b) Controlled and financed by the Jews/Israel
Even that's not quite as good as Ernst Zundel, who believed the Holocaust had been faked to ensure the Nazi survivors could get on with testing UFOs from their sub-Antarctic base in peace.
On your earlier post, Galileo is also rather a bad example. There is a detailed account of the affair and how it has been misinterpreted in James Hannam's God's Philosophers (not sure if you've ever read that - review here) but to cut to the chase, he agreed with the Inquisition that while the science was contestable to teach it as a theory and then turned around and taught it as a fact. (Also of course he was not buried in unconsecrated ground - I did enjoy one person who made that claim and then followed up, unforgettably, with an account of how moving he found a visit to Santa Croce in Florence to see Galileo's tomb!)
That book looks rather good: I've added it to my Kindle reading list. It'll be my next non-fiction (after Rejoice, Rejoice).
Comments
Trying to catch up with the day's events at Westminster and pretty much as might have been expected.
On topic, I don't regard the Russian Government as "evil". The Russian Government is promoting the interests of Russia which seems pretty much what it should be doing. "Evil" is a curious notion which I've been considering of late.
I suppose the definition of evil is a moral outlook antithetical to and diametrically opposed to one's own. Individuals are capable of evil but I'm less certain that's true of Governments even when led by evil individuals. Is Russia evil now, was the USSR evil then ? The USSR wanted to impose its moral and political outlook on the rest of the world but those who believed in such an outlook wouldn't have considered themselves evil but perhaps considered us evil instead.
So we have this notion of "evil" on the same day Theresa May throws around "moral" as justification for the Syrian airstrikes. I would contend there is plenty of justification for the strikes - legal, military, diplomatic, political but moral ? I struggle with this as well - are Governments moral in any sense ?
If I were a Syrian civilian, would my demise from a bullet, artillery shell or barrel bomb be more moral than death by poison gas ?
There are those who argue the only moral position is to oppose violence in all forms. That's not unreasonable if idealistic in the face of those who have no moral objection to the use of violence in the acquisition of objectives and the pursuit of policy.
Could a moral person be evil ? Yes but their morality would be constructed on principles so far removed from mine that there could be no common ground. One tends to think of evil as a form of amorality but I'm not convinced. Many of the most evil people in history were principled and moral in their own eyes - they might even have believed what they were doing was justifiable and could justify it.
Albert Camus:
"Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."
Substitute "politicians" for "thinkers" and it sums up Corbyn et al very well.
Or this by the late marvelous Tony Judt:
"Totalitarianism of the Left, much like an earlier totalitarianism of the Right, was about violence and power and control, and it appealed because of these features, not in spite of them."
No wonder people like Corbyn and McDonnell admire the IRA, Putin, Assad and similar violent despots.
Radical Islam is controlled and directed by the Jewish Illuminati Lizards because it allows them to justify the repressive actions necessary to protect the hub of their operations in Israel.
Or something...
Quite aside from its rampant corruption, exploitation of ordinary Russians and aggression, it routinely murders its critics in horrific ways.
Jean Baptiste Lamarck (d. 1829) is also important in developing the theories of how characteristics chance over time, a soft theory of evolution it's sometimes called.
There are many others but those are the two most important ones. Their theories were flawed in crucial ways - and still more flawed in that they couldn't prove them, which Darwin could - but they were out there all right.
With that I am off to bed. Happy researching!
Joe Hart, on the other hand, should be available to do some more Head and Shoulders commercials.
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/why-caribbean-commonwealth-citizens-are-being-denied-immigration-status/
Agree about Joe Hart.
What did you use?
Those are two of my favourite museums.
•introduce new sanctions on illegal workers and rogue employers
•provide better co-ordination of regulators that enforce workers’ rights
•prevent illegal migrants in the UK from accessing housing, driving licences and bank accounts
•introduce new measures to make it easier to enforce immigration laws and remove illegal migrants
So in short those who could not document their right to be here could not work, could not get housing, could not get a bank account and could not get a driving licence.
This policy, driven by Mrs May whilst Home Secretary, was designed to achieve Dave's slightly daft and optimistic "tens of thousands" pledge. It has inevitably caught up an endless supply of people who have been here for a very long time, many of whom have difficulty in explaining the legal basis on which they came here in the first place and cannot prove continuous occupation.
The Windrush situation is just the latest manifestation of this deeply illiberal piece of legislation of which we should be properly ashamed. It is a vicious alternative to the correct approach which was to deal with the backlogs that paralyse our immigration system by widespread and comprehensive amnesties combined with much more rigorous enforcement going forward.
The government really deserves all the flack it is going to get for this.
And on Windrush - utterly dreadful and Amber Rudd will be lucky to keep her job. I am ashamed that we could be even thinking of these deportations
Those blaming the bureaucrats are passing the buck.
(Not that said bureaucrats are utterly without blame...)
"Exploitation of ordinary Russians" - there are those who consider capitalism exploitative. What does exploitation mean - excessive taxation might be considered exploitation.
"Aggression" - arguably Russia has been expansionist since Peter the Great. Has it been evil for over 300 years ? Was it evil when it drove back the Nazis ?
"Murders its critics" - I agree it's distasteful and abhorrent but the Russians are far from alone in that. I do agree accepting and being open to criticism is a strength and virtue of a civilised society but plenty aren't. Are they all evil ?
I accept the Russian way of doing things as antithetical to how we purport to operate but throwing words like "evil" around doesn't help. It's part and parcel of a tactic of demonisation we saw in the Cold War. We are being taught again to see the Russians as monsters, bereft of humanity, determined on the single goal of our subjugation.
It was absurd then, it's absurd now.
TMay as home secretary was way too illiberal and authoritarian for my liking.
https://twitter.com/Glenn_Kitson/status/985778426937331712
But the big question is where is McDonnell - haven't seen him for weeks and didnt even see him in the HOC today
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/16/politics/michael-cohen-hearing/index.html
Let me guess... BBC?
1. It's clear where the priorities of a government lie, where the principals enrich themselves to the tune of perhaps $50bn
2. The glory of Russia and the good of the Russian people are two separate things. I think Mr Putin, after concentrating on his primary goal (remaining in power) and his secondary goal (enriching himself), is concerned only with the nebulous glory of Russia. Countries where the government is focused on the wellbeing of the population (Switzerland, Canada and Australia all spring to mind) should be the ones who should be lauded.
But I have said all day how I condemn the Windrush scandal and even think Amber Rudd is on shaky ground
Speaking to an academic researcher, Andy Wigmore appeared to compare the process to the “very clever” propaganda techniques of the Nazis.
Mr Wigmore was communications director for the Leave.EU campaign fronted by then Ukip leader Nigel Farage and funded by millionaire Arron Banks.
His comments were described as “particularly concerning” by Damian Collins, the chairman of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the phenomenon of “fake news”.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-5622291/Leave-campaign-deliberately-stoked-outrage-Brexit-campaign.html
Would that be for Trump, or Hannity ?
It's another remarkable example of the bizarre moral and logical somersaults some people engage in to apologise for Corbyn.
If you want to stop drug use, criminalise the users.
If you want to stop prostitution, criminalise the johns.
If you want to stop illegal immigration, criminalise employing illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants come here because there is a large black market, where there are no checks on status. If you come and wash up in a kitchen in Brick Lane, and are paid in cash, no one knows if you are supposed to be here or not. And all too often fines are derisory.
We should follow the Swiss model of cracking down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. Give illegal immigrants amnesty for reporting their employers. It would soon stop firms and individuals from employing people without proper documentation. And if you can no longer work in the UK, then far fewer people will attempt to come here illegally.
So there's something very odd about this.
This is also what is so disingenuous about Trump's border wall. The US has almost *no* penalties for people who employ workers illegally, because all too many political donors benefit from it - whether its their maid, the construction workers on a Trump building, or the people picking crops in California.
Illegal immigrants come to the US because there is demand for their labour. Criminalise employing people illegally, and that demand will drop.
How much more draconian do you want it to be?
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/985998466936721409?s=21
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/why-caribbean-commonwealth-citizens-are-being-denied-immigration-status/