It's substanceless nonsense of the "it's all proved too hard to negotiate a deal so I'm going to pretend that no deal is a really good thing after all" type.
It’s not talking about No Deal, it’s suggesting something along the lines of the Canada Deal.
WTO terms Brexit would get support from about 40 to 45% of the electorate pitted against Remain and 80 to 90% of Leave voters would back it.
However at least 10% of Leave voters ie mainly upper middle class pro EEA types would switch to Remain rather than go to No Deal Brexit.
The Chequers Deal is the best long term prospect for Brexit as it still ends free movement and deals with the immigration concerns of Leave voters while also getting a Deal with the EU that can reduce the impact on the economy of Brexit
Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.
Quantum of Solace was absolute tripe so lets hope Idris takes Bond back to winning ways.
Spectre, which came out later, was back on form.
I know a fabulous piece of gossip about Dan Craig/Bond which the tabloids would kill for. Sadly, my lips are sealed.
But trust me - it's great!
You are wrong.
Spectre was dull.
Skyfall mediocre.
Quantum dire.
Casino Royale is not only Craig's best film; it is the best film in the entire series. Were it not for the overlong epilogue, it would have been a perfect Bond film. Sadly for Craig the only was was down following that picture.
What's interesting about the Burqa Boris farrago is the same people who put French flags in their Facebook profiles and went about hashtagging jesuischarlie are now calling Boris a bigot.
Support for the Charlie Hebdo victims was quite literally support for a magazine which took the piss out of the Prophet Mohammed.
That's worse than what Boris did. So why is it okay to support them and not Boris?
I guess it's because Boris is a Tory and a Brexiteer.
Or because the Hebdo people were murdered? There's a difference between disagreeing with how public figures phrase their views and defending their right to express them without fear. Boris and Hedo have a right to satirise pretty much any way they like. Saying that doesn't mean we have to agree.
Boris defended the right of people to wear what they want but also used free speech to satirise what they wear.
So Boris was liberal about what people wear and liberal about satire. What's not to like?
So you can't disagree with anything anyone says because they're "using free speech" to say it?
I just don’t see that what he says is that offensive. People are wanting to be offended because it’s Boris. As has been pointed out the same has been said by HIGNYFY and Stephen Fry, and Polly Toynbee. I just don’t see that those who are offended by those people, therefore it’s political rather than anything else.
For me, the issue is mainly that it's on brexitcentral. Even as an ardent Leaver, I'm going to give anything on there as much credence as I do william's messianic EU-love on here.
It's substanceless nonsense of the "it's all proved too hard to negotiate a deal so I'm going to pretend that no deal is a really good thing after all" type.
Says a man who spent two years majoring on substanceless nonsense.
I have a feeling that some of pb's regular posters would fall foul of the outrage police very quickly if they were in a position of political prominence.
To be fair it's tricky not to with, amongst others, prominent people such as Peter Tatchell, Germaine Greer and Trevor Noah who aren't exactly on the hard right managing to fall foul of various pitchforks.
Germaine Greer brought it on herself. She's been a leading proponent of homophobic and transphobic schools of third wave feminist thought for as long as I can remember. It's no great surprise that she's widely loathed by modern feminists.
How exactly is Greer homophobic? That's a new one on me.
The changeover could also impact on whether there’s a CON leadership challenge and the position of the Etonian hard line Brexiter duo of Moggsy and BoJo. It is hard to see them getting the backing from Greig that you’d expect Dacre to have given?
Will have the greatest impact. It won’t be so much what Grieg will say, but what he won’t say....
It’s interesting that OGH feels the need to highlight the educational choices their parents made.
It's substanceless nonsense of the "it's all proved too hard to negotiate a deal so I'm going to pretend that no deal is a really good thing after all" type.
Says a man who spent two years majoring on substanceless nonsense.
So you must be right.
Yesterday you were touting a theory that I'd first put together over a year ago.
The changeover could also impact on whether there’s a CON leadership challenge and the position of the Etonian hard line Brexiter duo of Moggsy and BoJo. It is hard to see them getting the backing from Greig that you’d expect Dacre to have given?
Will have the greatest impact. It won’t be so much what Grieg will say, but what he won’t say....
It’s interesting that OGH feels the need to highlight the educational choices their parents made.
The last acceptable form of prejudice?
Yes, Charles, you are as oppressed as an involuntary niqab wearer.
Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?
The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.
I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
I am able to report that there appears to be a total absence of oppressed women forced to wear the burqa in south Devon.
Must be down to our legendary tolerance.
I suspect there is almost a total absence of Muslims in south Devon, but could be wrong.
Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.
Quantum of Solace was absolute tripe so lets hope Idris takes Bond back to winning ways.
Spectre, which came out later, was back on form.
I know a fabulous piece of gossip about Dan Craig/Bond which the tabloids would kill for. Sadly, my lips are sealed.
But trust me - it's great!
You are wrong.
Spectre was dull.
Skyfall mediocre.
Quantum dire.
Casino Royale is not only Craig's best film; it is the best film in the entire series. Were it not for the overlong epilogue, it would have been a perfect Bond film. Sadly for Craig the only was was down following that picture.
Idris would make an excellent Bond. Bring it on.
However good or bad they are all James Bonds are a variation on a theme ending up with a final confrontation between Bond and the villain.
If you want something original and interesting go and see something like 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing not a franchise like Bond, Star Wars, Mission Impossible or the Avengers
The changeover could also impact on whether there’s a CON leadership challenge and the position of the Etonian hard line Brexiter duo of Moggsy and BoJo. It is hard to see them getting the backing from Greig that you’d expect Dacre to have given?
Will have the greatest impact. It won’t be so much what Grieg will say, but what he won’t say....
It’s interesting that OGH feels the need to highlight the educational choices their parents made.
The last acceptable form of prejudice?
If those educational choices had no effect on the people they became, what was the point of them? Are you suggesting their parents wasted their money?
Mr. Z, attacking people based on where they went to school (which wasn't their choice) is daft.
Arguments should be judged based on the strength of their reasoning, not because of where the chap or lady in question was sent to school by their parents when they were 11. That's just weird.
Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.
Quantum of Solace was absolute tripe so lets hope Idris takes Bond back to winning ways.
Spectre, which came out later, was back on form.
I know a fabulous piece of gossip about Dan Craig/Bond which the tabloids would kill for. Sadly, my lips are sealed.
But trust me - it's great!
You are wrong.
Spectre was dull.
Skyfall mediocre.
Quantum dire.
Casino Royale is not only Craig's best film; it is the best film in the entire series. Were it not for the overlong epilogue, it would have been a perfect Bond film. Sadly for Craig the only was was down following that picture.
Idris would make an excellent Bond. Bring it on.
However good or bad they are all James Bonds are a variation on a theme ending up with a final confrontation between Bond and the villain.
If you want something original and interesting go and see something like 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing not a franchise like Bond, Star Wars, Mission Impossible or the Avengers
I always thought they should have camped up the Bond series and had Rupert Everett playing him.
I suspect this: The changeover could also impact on whether there’s a CON leadership challenge and the position of the Etonian hard line Brexiter duo of Moggsy and BoJo. It is hard to see them getting the backing from Greig that you’d expect Dacre to have given? Will have the greatest impact. It won’t be so much what Grieg will say, but what he won’t say....
It’s interesting that OGH feels the need to highlight the educational choices their parents made. The last acceptable form of prejudice?
Didn`t Eton make them the kind of men they are today?
Mr. Z, attacking people based on where they went to school (which wasn't their choice) is daft.
Arguments should be judged based on the strength of their reasoning, not because of where the chap or lady in question was sent to school by their parents when they were 11. That's just weird.
Most parents will try and get their children into the best school possible whether that is private or grammar or free school or an outstanding Church of England comprehensive or Academy, that is human nature. What the child achieves or not at that school is then up to them
Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.
Quantum of Solace was absolute tripe so lets hope Idris takes Bond back to winning ways.
The rumour about Idris Elba is tabloid bollocks.
We get this virtually every time there’s a Bond actor changeover. The last “rumour” to be right was Pierce Brosnan taking over from Dalton, and that’s only because it was obvious and public for years.
Mr. Z, attacking people based on where they went to school (which wasn't their choice) is daft.
Arguments should be judged based on the strength of their reasoning, not because of where the chap or lady in question was sent to school by their parents when they were 11. That's just weird.
But I thought we could ridicule burqa wearers, when that isn't their choice?
And the point is that an OE is an OE, whether he decided to become one or not, and "X is an OE" has a lot of informational and predictive value, especially in this context, so I don't see why you consider it an attack or an argument.
The changeover could also impact on whether there’s a CON leadership challenge and the position of the Etonian hard line Brexiter duo of Moggsy and BoJo. It is hard to see them getting the backing from Greig that you’d expect Dacre to have given?
Will have the greatest impact. It won’t be so much what Grieg will say, but what he won’t say....
It’s interesting that OGH feels the need to highlight the educational choices their parents made.
The last acceptable form of prejudice?
I don't have an issue with this, so long as no undue deference the other way is given to those who attended a particular school.
Mr. Z, attacking people based on where they went to school (which wasn't their choice) is daft.
Arguments should be judged based on the strength of their reasoning, not because of where the chap or lady in question was sent to school by their parents when they were 11. That's just weird.
Most parents will try and get their children into the best school possible whether that is private or grammar or free school or an outstanding Church of England comprehensive or Academy, that is human nature. What the child achieves or not at that school is then up to them
Hmm, I think you might find that the parents have a lot to do with their success
Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.
Quantum of Solace was absolute tripe so lets hope Idris takes Bond back to winning ways.
Spectre, which came out later, was back on form.
I know a fabulous piece of gossip about Dan Craig/Bond which the tabloids would kill for. Sadly, my lips are sealed.
But trust me - it's great!
You are wrong.
Spectre was dull.
Skyfall mediocre.
Quantum dire.
Casino Royale is not only Craig's best film; it is the best film in the entire series. Were it not for the overlong epilogue, it would have been a perfect Bond film. Sadly for Craig the only was was down following that picture.
Idris would make an excellent Bond. Bring it on.
Agree with most of that. I am in a small minority who thinks Skyfall absurdly overrated.
The Living Daylights and OHMSS, plus Goldeneye, FRWL, Thunderball and Goldfinger are my favourites.
Octopussy is Moore’s best, and TSWLM is good silly fun.
It's substanceless nonsense of the "it's all proved too hard to negotiate a deal so I'm going to pretend that no deal is a really good thing after all" type.
Says a man who spent two years majoring on substanceless nonsense.
So you must be right.
Yesterday you were touting a theory that I'd first put together over a year ago.
It's substanceless nonsense of the "it's all proved too hard to negotiate a deal so I'm going to pretend that no deal is a really good thing after all" type.
Says a man who spent two years majoring on substanceless nonsense.
So you must be right.
Plagiarised from mine of 18 months plus ago.
Too absurd to be libellous: it is dependent on the result of a general election from just over a year ago.
One day you might have an original idea. We all await that day with measured interest.
Tedious as I find the Anglo obsession with a fictional Swiss/Scotch secret agent, perhaps a momentary distraction from Burqas can be enjoyed laughing at Richard 'dick' Spencer.
Quantum of Solace was absolute tripe so lets hope Idris takes Bond back to winning ways.
Spectre, which came out later, was back on form.
I know a fabulous piece of gossip about Dan Craig/Bond which the tabloids would kill for. Sadly, my lips are sealed.
But trust me - it's great!
You are wrong.
Spectre was dull.
Skyfall mediocre.
Quantum dire.
Casino Royale is not only Craig's best film; it is the best film in the entire series. Were it not for the overlong epilogue, it would have been a perfect Bond film. Sadly for Craig the only was was down following that picture.
Idris would make an excellent Bond. Bring it on.
However good or bad they are all James Bonds are a variation on a theme ending up with a final confrontation between Bond and the villain.
If you want something original and interesting go and see something like 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing not a franchise like Bond, Star Wars, Mission Impossible or the Avengers
I always thought they should have camped up the Bond series and had Rupert Everett playing him.
Mr. Z, attacking people based on where they went to school (which wasn't their choice) is daft.
Arguments should be judged based on the strength of their reasoning, not because of where the chap or lady in question was sent to school by their parents when they were 11. That's just weird.
Most parents will try and get their children into the best school possible whether that is private or grammar or free school or an outstanding Church of England comprehensive or Academy, that is human nature. What the child achieves or not at that school is then up to them
Hmm, I think you might find that the parents have a lot to do with their success
Well obviously if you have upper middle class parents you are likely to do well whether in a requires improvement or inadequate comprehensive or at Eton, it is working class pupils who most need good schools
Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?
The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.
I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
I am able to report that there appears to be a total absence of oppressed women forced to wear the burqa in south Devon.
Must be down to our legendary tolerance.
I suspect there is almost a total absence of Muslims in south Devon, but could be wrong.
Not a total absence. But given the scenery is stunning, the weather often more clement than anywhere further north, the hospitality warm - you might just wonder: why don't we get Muslim families, including women in the burqa? Could it be that on one level, Muslim men KNOW that what they are inflicting on their womenfolk is deeply mysoginistic to British society? And absent groups of similarly clad women and their contolling menfolk, everybody - their wives included - might just see down at the beach how medieval it all looks?
Though a more contributory benefits system where you largely get out what you put in would have most support
Well that is just completely ludicrous, as simple luck dictates whether or not people 'get out' as much as they put in. If you have a car accident as a passenger, for example, and it severely compromises your physical ability to work, you are going to 'get out' more from the system than someone who doesn't. Personally, given a choice of getting almost no advantage from the system or 'getting out' lots of benefits because I've been unlucky, I would choose the former. I suspect, if they ever bothered to think about it, most people would concur.
The more I think about it, the more disturbing this is. Labour feels comfortable denying something Corbyn himself said he did, and which there are photographs of him doing. And thousands of Corbynites use the denial to call everyone else liars. 5h
WTO terms Brexit would get support from about 40 to 45% of the electorate pitted against Remain and 80 to 90% of Leave voters would back it.
However at least 10% of Leave voters ie mainly upper middle class pro EEA types would switch to Remain rather than go to No Deal Brexit.
The Chequers Deal is the best long term prospect for Brexit as it still ends free movement and deals with the immigration concerns of Leave voters while also getting a Deal with the EU that can reduce the impact on the economy of Brexit
The problem is you can't build political and public policy simply on the basis of what polls say. extrapolating sub-samples and second-guessing trends. Politics and the development of policy is about what you think is the right course for the country which may not be popular but the act and art of politics is argument and persuasion.
Simply trying to be with the majority in every poll is the road to unprincipled ruination because the inner contradictions will find you out.
As an example, the Conservative Party used to believe in lower taxes but now it seems spending is back in fashion with largesse for the NHS and rough sleepers. That may be what the voters want but is that what's right?
Populist parties fail because they try to be all things to all people - cut taxes, fine, Spend more money on public services, fine, Support business, fine, be on the side of the consumer, fine. The circle cannot be squared simply by trying to always be where the majority or largest minority happens to be.
What's interesting about the Burqa Boris farrago is the same people who put French flags in their Facebook profiles and went about hashtagging jesuischarlie are now calling Boris a bigot.
Support for the Charlie Hebdo victims was quite literally support for a magazine which took the piss out of the Prophet Mohammed.
That's worse than what Boris did. So why is it okay to support them and not Boris?
I guess it's because Boris is a Tory and a Brexiteer.
Or because the Hebdo people were murdered? There's a difference between disagreeing with how public figures phrase their views and defending their right to express them without fear. Boris and Hedo have a right to satirise pretty much any way they like. Saying that doesn't mean we have to agree.
Boris defended the right of people to wear what they want but also used free speech to satirise what they wear.
So Boris was liberal about what people wear and liberal about satire. What's not to like?
So you can't disagree with anything anyone says because they're "using free speech" to say it?
Of course one can disagree - but that is different from preventing someone from saying it.
Though a more contributory benefits system where you largely get out what you put in would have most support
Well that is just completely ludicrous, as simple luck dictates whether or not people 'get out' as much as they put in. If you have a car accident as a passenger, for example, and it severely compromises your physical ability to work, you are going to 'get out' more from the system than someone who doesn't. Personally, given a choice of getting almost no advantage from the system or 'getting out' lots of benefits because I've been unlucky, I would choose the former. I suspect, if they ever bothered to think about it, most people would concur.
Well, as the article itself says, most people do, in fact, concur. The fact that there is minority support for pretty much any policy you can think of is probably just the political equivalent of rule 34.
Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?
The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.
I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
I am able to report that there appears to be a total absence of oppressed women forced to wear the burqa in south Devon.
Must be down to our legendary tolerance.
I suspect there is almost a total absence of Muslims in south Devon, but could be wrong.
Not a total absence. But given the scenery is stunning, the weather often more clement than anywhere further north, the hospitality warm - you might just wonder: why don't we get Muslim families, including women in the burqa? Could it be that on one level, Muslim men KNOW that what they are inflicting on their womenfolk is deeply mysoginistic to British society? And absent groups of similarly clad women and their contolling menfolk, everybody - their wives included - might just see down at the beach how medieval it all looks?
We should add that the foreign country of Muslimland is actually many different places with different traditions and cultures. Whether we are seeing in Britain an homogenisation owing to social media and just propinquity is beyond my ken but I expect there are some PhD theses in the works.
Though a more contributory benefits system where you largely get out what you put in would have most support
Well that is just completely ludicrous, as simple luck dictates whether or not people 'get out' as much as they put in. If you have a car accident as a passenger, for example, and it severely compromises your physical ability to work, you are going to 'get out' more from the system than someone who doesn't. Personally, given a choice of getting almost no advantage from the system or 'getting out' lots of benefits because I've been unlucky, I would choose the former. I suspect, if they ever bothered to think about it, most people would concur.
Disability allowance is a separate case, jobseekers allowance should be higher for those who have made more NI payments as in Germany
WTO terms Brexit would get support from about 40 to 45% of the electorate pitted against Remain and 80 to 90% of Leave voters would back it.
However at least 10% of Leave voters ie mainly upper middle class pro EEA types would switch to Remain rather than go to No Deal Brexit.
The Chequers Deal is the best long term prospect for Brexit as it still ends free movement and deals with the immigration concerns of Leave voters while also getting a Deal with the EU that can reduce the impact on the economy of Brexit
The problem is you can't build political and public policy simply on the basis of what polls say. extrapolating sub-samples and second-guessing trends. Politics and the development of policy is about what you think is the right course for the country which may not be popular but the act and art of politics is argument and persuasion.
Simply trying to be with the majority in every poll is the road to unprincipled ruination because the inner contradictions will find you out.
As an example, the Conservative Party used to believe in lower taxes but now it seems spending is back in fashion with largesse for the NHS and rough sleepers. That may be what the voters want but is that what's right?
Populist parties fail because they try to be all things to all people - cut taxes, fine, Spend more money on public services, fine, Support business, fine, be on the side of the consumer, fine. The circle cannot be squared simply by trying to always be where the majority or largest minority happens to be.
Different variants of Leave are still not Remain, you need one that respects the vote and had most support
Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?
The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.
I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
I am able to report that there appears to be a total absence of oppressed women forced to wear the burqa in south Devon.
Must be down to our legendary tolerance.
I suspect there is almost a total absence of Muslims in south Devon, but could be wrong.
Not a total absence. But given the scenery is stunning, the weather often more clement than anywhere further north, the hospitality warm - you might just wonder: why don't we get Muslim families, including women in the burqa? Could it be that on one level, Muslim men KNOW that what they are inflicting on their womenfolk is deeply mysoginistic to British society? And absent groups of similarly clad women and their contolling menfolk, everybody - their wives included - might just see down at the beach how medieval it all looks?
The burqa is not required by Islam; it’s purely a cultural item for some regional groups. A bit like the kilt!
You might well find that there are quite a ferw Moslems in S Devon, it’s just that they don’t wear distinctive clothing. Or there isn’t a support network. Aas a Jewish friend once said tho me, I’d rather go to Westcliff (part of Southend) than other parts of Essex because there’s a Jweish support network there.
Mr. Z, attacking people based on where they went to school (which wasn't their choice) is daft.
Arguments should be judged based on the strength of their reasoning, not because of where the chap or lady in question was sent to school by their parents when they were 11. That's just weird.
Most parents will try and get their children into the best school possible whether that is private or grammar or free school or an outstanding Church of England comprehensive or Academy, that is human nature. What the child achieves or not at that school is then up to them
Hmm, I think you might find that the parents have a lot to do with their success
So clearly we should remove children forthwith from caring and responsible parents to ensure their offspring have no advantages over those parents who are feckless. The idiocy of socialism in a sentence.
Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?
The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.
I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
I am able to report that there appears to be a total absence of oppressed women forced to wear the burqa in south Devon.
Must be down to our legendary tolerance.
I suspect there is almost a total absence of Muslims in south Devon, but could be wrong.
Not a total absence. But given the scenery is stunning, the weather often more clement than anywhere further north, the hospitality warm - you might just wonder: why don't we get Muslim families, including women in the burqa? Could it be that on one level, Muslim men KNOW that what they are inflicting on their womenfolk is deeply mysoginistic to British society? And absent groups of similarly clad women and their contolling menfolk, everybody - their wives included - might just see down at the beach how medieval it all looks?
We should add that the foreign country of Muslimland is actually many different places with different traditions and cultures. Whether we are seeing in Britain an homogenisation owing to social media and just propinquity is beyond my ken but I expect there are some PhD theses in the works.
I don't think we are seeing homogeneity. The burka and niqab are distatestful symbols of fundamentalist oppression and only the extremists on either side of the fence equate it with Muslims.
Saying the niqab is the same as Muslims is like saying the swastika is the same as Germans.
Mr. Z, attacking people based on where they went to school (which wasn't their choice) is daft.
Arguments should be judged based on the strength of their reasoning, not because of where the chap or lady in question was sent to school by their parents when they were 11. That's just weird.
Most parents will try and get their children into the best school possible whether that is private or grammar or free school or an outstanding Church of England comprehensive or Academy, that is human nature. What the child achieves or not at that school is then up to them
Hmm, I think you might find that the parents have a lot to do with their success
So clearly we should remove children forthwith from caring and responsible parents to ensure their offspring have no advantages over those parents who are feckless. The idiocy of socialism in a sentence.
That's not socialism. That's meritocracy -- we don't want rich parents buggering it up now, do we?
Mr. Z, attacking people based on where they went to school (which wasn't their choice) is daft.
Arguments should be judged based on the strength of their reasoning, not because of where the chap or lady in question was sent to school by their parents when they were 11. That's just weird.
Most parents will try and get their children into the best school possible whether that is private or grammar or free school or an outstanding Church of England comprehensive or Academy, that is human nature. What the child achieves or not at that school is then up to them
Hmm, I think you might find that the parents have a lot to do with their success
So clearly we should remove children forthwith from caring and responsible parents to ensure their offspring have no advantages over those parents who are feckless. The idiocy of socialism in a sentence.
That's not socialism. That's meritocracy -- we don't want rich parents buggering it up now, do we?
No it isn't, it is lowest common denominator education for all.
Based on comments, it's clear that some respondents haven't sweated themselves to actually read Goodwin's article. My takeaways:
It explains why the LDs are wallowing in the single digits. There's a good chunk of the electorate who are quite Old Labour in their outlook, and don't much care for the 'retail offer' of any of the parties.
It's also a harbinger of the likely doom of any UK En Marche equivalent; we're just not in the market for Macrons or Trudeaus.
May is likely in trouble. If you squint enough, folk don't want to leave the EU as a goal; they want reduced immigration. Just relabelling FoM as a 'mobility framework' will not sell. That opposition to immigration is emotional rather than financial (or we could just call 'em xenophobes, because that'll change their minds).
The Horde is already spreading the fact that she is a member of Labour Friends of Israel, and in the pay of the Israeli lobby.
Although why it's suspicious for a member of the LFI to stand up for widows of tortured and murdered Israelis is beyond me. But then I'm not a swivel-eyed, paranoid antisemite.
Mr. Z, attacking people based on where they went to school (which wasn't their choice) is daft.
Arguments should be judged based on the strength of their reasoning, not because of where the chap or lady in question was sent to school by their parents when they were 11. That's just weird.
Most parents will try and get their children into the best school possible whether that is private or grammar or free school or an outstanding Church of England comprehensive or Academy, that is human nature. What the child achieves or not at that school is then up to them
Hmm, I think you might find that the parents have a lot to do with their success
So clearly we should remove children forthwith from caring and responsible parents to ensure their offspring have no advantages over those parents who are feckless. The idiocy of socialism in a sentence.
Calm down. I didn't say anything of the sort. I merely pointed out that HYUFD's contention that children's success at school is down to them was wrong.
Though a more contributory benefits system where you largely get out what you put in would have most support
Well that is just completely ludicrous, as simple luck dictates whether or not people 'get out' as much as they put in. If you have a car accident as a passenger, for example, and it severely compromises your physical ability to work, you are going to 'get out' more from the system than someone who doesn't. Personally, given a choice of getting almost no advantage from the system or 'getting out' lots of benefits because I've been unlucky, I would choose the former. I suspect, if they ever bothered to think about it, most people would concur.
Disability allowance is a separate case, jobseekers allowance should be higher for those who have made more NI payments as in Germany
Any other special cases you want to list or just DA?
I don't think we are seeing homogeneity. The burka and niqab are distatestful symbols of fundamentalist oppression and only the extremists on either side of the fence equate it with Muslims.
Saying the niqab is the same as Muslims is like saying the swastika is the same as Germans.
That is absolutely true. But it is a symbol of a particular version of Islam spread by one of the richest Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia. It is a symbol of a particular version of Islam which is separatist, hostile to the West, extreme and which does not fit in at all well with our secular liberal democracy. We should be doing everything we can to discourage its spread within Muslim communities here.
You won't see many burqas anyway which have a mesh covering the eyes - it's niqabs which are worn in the UK which have a slit which allow you to see the person's eyes.
Same, I've only ever seen the burqa once (Edinburgh).
Hard to see them as anything other than husbands treating their wives as property. Other than that I don't care too much.
I don't think I have ever seen a burqa in Edinburgh or indeed anywhere else in Scotland. I have see a few niqabs in Edinburgh and the odd one in Glasgow.
What concerns me about these clothes is that it is part of a mindset that says I don't want to be a part of your society, I don't want you to look at me, I don't think its appropriate to have anything to do with me as we are not married or related and it is not right for women to have such interaction with men in those circumstances.
Having thought about it I am even more concerned about this if it is true that this reflects the women's mindset than if it is something imposed upon them. For me, immigrants are welcome as long as they integrate and accept our values. This is a very visible demonstration of a repudiation of those values and a desire to stay apart.
Of course we have always accepted counter-cultures up to a point, whether punks, goths, or tattoo aficionados but there is something particularly disturbing (to me) to have such a mindset based around a medieval religion. I still tend to the bans are wrong tendency but I really don't like it.
Based on comments, it's clear that some respondents haven't sweated themselves to actually read Goodwin's article. My takeaways:
It explains why the LDs are wallowing in the single digits. There's a good chunk of the electorate who are quite Old Labour in their outlook, and don't much care for the 'retail offer' of any of the parties.
It's also a harbinger of the likely doom of any UK En Marche equivalent; we're just not in the market for Macrons or Trudeaus.
May is likely in trouble. If you squint enough, folk don't want to leave the EU as a goal; they want reduced immigration. Just relabelling FoM as a 'mobility framework' will not sell. That opposition to immigration is emotional rather than financial (or we could just call 'em xenophobes, because that'll change their minds).
That is correct.
There are voters who are at the same time pro-EU, pro-immigration and diversity, and in favour of free markets, but not many of them, and certainly not many of them outside of upper middle class circles. That viewpoint is not where the centre ground is.
Though a more contributory benefits system where you largely get out what you put in would have most support
Well that is just completely ludicrous, as simple luck dictates whether or not people 'get out' as much as they put in. If you have a car accident as a passenger, for example, and it severely compromises your physical ability to work, you are going to 'get out' more from the system than someone who doesn't. Personally, given a choice of getting almost no advantage from the system or 'getting out' lots of benefits because I've been unlucky, I would choose the former. I suspect, if they ever bothered to think about it, most people would concur.
Well, as the article itself says, most people do, in fact, concur. The fact that there is minority support for pretty much any policy you can think of is probably just the political equivalent of rule 34.
I don't think we are seeing homogeneity. The burka and niqab are distatestful symbols of fundamentalist oppression and only the extremists on either side of the fence equate it with Muslims.
Saying the niqab is the same as Muslims is like saying the swastika is the same as Germans.
That is absolutely true. But it is a symbol of a particular version of Islam spread by one of the richest Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia. It is a symbol of a particular version of Islam which is separatist, hostile to the West, extreme and which does not fit in at all well with our secular liberal democracy. We should be doing everything we can to discourage its spread within Muslim communities here.
One can easily imagine what Nasser or Ataturk or the Shah would have to had to say about Burkas.
Incredible. Scenario planning for a Corbyn government is being undertake by activists, looking at all the threats they will face.
Here's just one of a big list:
"A backlash from the generals and MI5
– Work on the assumption that MI6 and the military are not sympathetic and will work against a possible Corbyn government. – Have to identify the difference between covert and overt action. For example, the use of the state against the miners and activists and covert action by MI5/6 and the military. – Challenge the idea that “that kind of thing doesn’t happen here” by explaining some past events –e.g. Conspiracy against Wilson government; troops at Heathrow in 1974 during period of political and economic crisis.* – Beware of threat of blackmailing senior labour figures. – Understand how the state can sow discord inside leftist organisations, creating an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust. – Learn from the coping tactics of communities who are singled out by the state e.g. Muslim communities and other minorities. Build mutual solidarity with them. – Openly confront secret services and make public what they are doing and make them accountable for their actions. – Be on the lookout for whistleblowers and leaks from within the state. – Use the existence of a mass movement to defend the government. – Work with organisations and left lawyers to develop an alternative legal system"
Incredible. Scenario planning for a Corbyn government is being undertake by activists, looking at all the threats they will face.
Here's just one of a big list:
"A backlash from the generals and MI5
– Work on the assumption that MI6 and the military are not sympathetic and will work against a possible Corbyn government. – Have to identify the difference between covert and overt action. For example, the use of the state against the miners and activists and covert action by MI5/6 and the military. – Challenge the idea that “that kind of thing doesn’t happen here” by explaining some past events –e.g. Conspiracy against Wilson government; troops at Heathrow in 1974 during period of political and economic crisis.* – Beware of threat of blackmailing senior labour figures. – Understand how the state can sow discord inside leftist organisations, creating an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust. – Learn from the coping tactics of communities who are singled out by the state e.g. Muslim communities and other minorities. Build mutual solidarity with them. – Openly confront secret services and make public what they are doing and make them accountable for their actions. – Be on the lookout for whistleblowers and leaks from within the state. – Use the existence of a mass movement to defend the government. – Work with organisations and left lawyers to develop an alternative legal system"
Incredible. Scenario planning for a Corbyn government is being undertake by activists, looking at all the threats they will face.
Here's just one of a big list:
"A backlash from the generals and MI5
– Work on the assumption that MI6 and the military are not sympathetic and will work against a possible Corbyn government. – Have to identify the difference between covert and overt action. For example, the use of the state against the miners and activists and covert action by MI5/6 and the military. – Challenge the idea that “that kind of thing doesn’t happen here” by explaining some past events –e.g. Conspiracy against Wilson government; troops at Heathrow in 1974 during period of political and economic crisis.* – Beware of threat of blackmailing senior labour figures. – Understand how the state can sow discord inside leftist organisations, creating an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust. – Learn from the coping tactics of communities who are singled out by the state e.g. Muslim communities and other minorities. Build mutual solidarity with them. – Openly confront secret services and make public what they are doing and make them accountable for their actions. – Be on the lookout for whistleblowers and leaks from within the state. – Use the existence of a mass movement to defend the government. – Work with organisations and left lawyers to develop an alternative legal system"
I don't think we are seeing homogeneity. The burka and niqab are distatestful symbols of fundamentalist oppression and only the extremists on either side of the fence equate it with Muslims.
Saying the niqab is the same as Muslims is like saying the swastika is the same as Germans.
That is absolutely true. But it is a symbol of a particular version of Islam spread by one of the richest Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia. It is a symbol of a particular version of Islam which is separatist, hostile to the West, extreme and which does not fit in at all well with our secular liberal democracy. We should be doing everything we can to discourage its spread within Muslim communities here.
One can easily imagine what Nasser or Ataturk or the Shah would have to had to say about Burkas.
Nasser was pretty pungent on the subject of headscarves, never mind Burkas
Incredible. Scenario planning for a Corbyn government is being undertake by activists, looking at all the threats they will face.
Here's just one of a big list:
"A backlash from the generals and MI5
– Work on the assumption that MI6 and the military are not sympathetic and will work against a possible Corbyn government. – Have to identify the difference between covert and overt action. For example, the use of the state against the miners and activists and covert action by MI5/6 and the military. – Challenge the idea that “that kind of thing doesn’t happen here” by explaining some past events –e.g. Conspiracy against Wilson government; troops at Heathrow in 1974 during period of political and economic crisis.* – Beware of threat of blackmailing senior labour figures. – Understand how the state can sow discord inside leftist organisations, creating an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust. – Learn from the coping tactics of communities who are singled out by the state e.g. Muslim communities and other minorities. Build mutual solidarity with them. – Openly confront secret services and make public what they are doing and make them accountable for their actions. – Be on the lookout for whistleblowers and leaks from within the state. – Use the existence of a mass movement to defend the government. – Work with organisations and left lawyers to develop an alternative legal system"
I don't think I have ever seen a burqa in Edinburgh or indeed anywhere else in Scotland. I have see a few niqabs in Edinburgh and the odd one in Glasgow.
What concerns me about these clothes is that it is part of a mindset that says I don't want to be a part of your society, I don't want you to look at me, I don't think its appropriate to have anything to do with me as we are not married or related and it is not right for women to have such interaction with men in those circumstances.
Having thought about it I am even more concerned about this if it is true that this reflects the women's mindset than if it is something imposed upon them. For me, immigrants are welcome as long as they integrate and accept our values. This is a very visible demonstration of a repudiation of those values and a desire to stay apart.
Of course we have always accepted counter-cultures up to a point, whether punks, goths, or tattoo aficionados but there is something particularly disturbing (to me) to have such a mindset based around a medieval religion. I still tend to the bans are wrong tendency but I really don't like it.
That is precisely my point. It's not the fact of you or I not liking it which is the issue. It is the fact that such an attitude (and all else that goes with it) is bad for social cohesion in our society. I do not want fellow female British citizens to be required to live in such a way, merely because their ancestors' culture requires it. If some British men have this attitude to some British women - that this is what modesty requires - what does this say about their attitude to other British women who do not dress in this way? That they are immodest? That they are therefore fair game? We have seen the consequences of this attitude in our criminal courts. Allowing this sort of mindset to take hold affects all of us.
The other point is that we are seeing the spread of this attitude amongst people who are not immigrants but who are the second, third or fourth generation - i.e. people born and educated here. The fact that they are becoming ever more separate drives a coach and horses through the lazy assumption often made by those in favour of immigration from very different cultures, namely, that they will integrate over time. This shows that this assumption is not necessarily true, at least for some cultures. And that has implications for public policy which need addressing (and which are not addressed by infantile articles jeering at what garments look like but then saying it's ok to have them).
Based on comments, it's clear that some respondents haven't sweated themselves to actually read Goodwin's article. My takeaways:
It explains why the LDs are wallowing in the single digits. There's a good chunk of the electorate who are quite Old Labour in their outlook, and don't much care for the 'retail offer' of any of the parties.
It's also a harbinger of the likely doom of any UK En Marche equivalent; we're just not in the market for Macrons or Trudeaus.
May is likely in trouble. If you squint enough, folk don't want to leave the EU as a goal; they want reduced immigration. Just relabelling FoM as a 'mobility framework' will not sell. That opposition to immigration is emotional rather than financial (or we could just call 'em xenophobes, because that'll change their minds).
Incredible. Scenario planning for a Corbyn government is being undertake by activists, looking at all the threats they will face.
Here's just one of a big list:
"A backlash from the generals and MI5
– Work on the assumption that MI6 and the military are not sympathetic and will work against a possible Corbyn government. – Have to identify the difference between covert and overt action. For example, the use of the state against the miners and activists and covert action by MI5/6 and the military. – Challenge the idea that “that kind of thing doesn’t happen here” by explaining some past events –e.g. Conspiracy against Wilson government; troops at Heathrow in 1974 during period of political and economic crisis.* – Beware of threat of blackmailing senior labour figures. – Understand how the state can sow discord inside leftist organisations, creating an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust. – Learn from the coping tactics of communities who are singled out by the state e.g. Muslim communities and other minorities. Build mutual solidarity with them. – Openly confront secret services and make public what they are doing and make them accountable for their actions. – Be on the lookout for whistleblowers and leaks from within the state. – Use the existence of a mass movement to defend the government. – Work with organisations and left lawyers to develop an alternative legal system"
Incredible. Scenario planning for a Corbyn government is being undertake by activists, looking at all the threats they will face.
Here's just one of a big list:
"A backlash from the generals and MI5
– Work on the assumption that MI6 and the military are not sympathetic and will work against a possible Corbyn government. – Have to identify the difference between covert and overt action. For example, the use of the state against the miners and activists and covert action by MI5/6 and the military. – Challenge the idea that “that kind of thing doesn’t happen here” by explaining some past events –e.g. Conspiracy against Wilson government; troops at Heathrow in 1974 during period of political and economic crisis.* – Beware of threat of blackmailing senior labour figures. – Understand how the state can sow discord inside leftist organisations, creating an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust. – Learn from the coping tactics of communities who are singled out by the state e.g. Muslim communities and other minorities. Build mutual solidarity with them. – Openly confront secret services and make public what they are doing and make them accountable for their actions. – Be on the lookout for whistleblowers and leaks from within the state. – Use the existence of a mass movement to defend the government. – Work with organisations and left lawyers to develop an alternative legal system"
"Intelligence historian Jon Moran, concluded in 2014:
The characterisation of Harold Wilson as paranoid does not take account of the political context of the time, which was characterised by a paranoid political style generally which applied to both left and right (including MI5 itself). The suspicion of Wilson and others towards the unlawful activities of the security services and other right wing figures resulted from concrete domestic and international developments discussed in more detail below. Andrew is correct to be sceptical, and there remains limited evidence of a ‘plot’, if a plot is defined as a tightly organised high-level conspiracy with a detailed plan.
I don't think we are seeing homogeneity. The burka and niqab are distatestful symbols of fundamentalist oppression and only the extremists on either side of the fence equate it with Muslims.
Saying the niqab is the same as Muslims is like saying the swastika is the same as Germans.
That is absolutely true. But it is a symbol of a particular version of Islam spread by one of the richest Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia. It is a symbol of a particular version of Islam which is separatist, hostile to the West, extreme and which does not fit in at all well with our secular liberal democracy. We should be doing everything we can to discourage its spread within Muslim communities here.
– Work on the assumption that MI6 and the military are not sympathetic and will work against a possible Corbyn government.
You know, it's easy to dismiss these people as conspiracist cranks.
But let's be honest here: you can guarantee that intelligence services have dossiers half a mile long on Corbyn and his collaborators. They're going to be automatically biased against him if nothing else for the increased workload he's caused them over the years.
Of course, nobody actually needs to sow dissent and division in left wing orgs, they're perfectly capable of doing that without any government intervention.
You won't see many burqas anyway which have a mesh covering the eyes - it's niqabs which are worn in the UK which have a slit which allow you to see the person's eyes.
Same, I've only ever seen the burqa once (Edinburgh).
Hard to see them as anything other than husbands treating their wives as property. Other than that I don't care too much.
I don't think I have ever seen a burqa in Edinburgh or indeed anywhere else in Scotland. I have see a few niqabs in Edinburgh and the odd one in Glasgow.
What concerns me about these clothes is that it is part of a mindset that says I don't want to be a part of your society, I don't want you to look at me, I don't think its appropriate to have anything to do with me as we are not married or related and it is not right for women to have such interaction with men in those circumstances.
Having thought about it I am even more concerned about this if it is true that this reflects the women's mindset than if it is something imposed upon them. For me, immigrants are welcome as long as they integrate and accept our values. This is a very visible demonstration of a repudiation of those values and a desire to stay apart.
Of course we have always accepted counter-cultures up to a point, whether punks, goths, or tattoo aficionados but there is something particularly disturbing (to me) to have such a mindset based around a medieval religion. I still tend to the bans are wrong tendency but I really don't like it.
Human nature wins out, though. I remember the first time when I lived in Highbury I was stopped by a lady in a hijab who wanted to ask the way (in a brisk London accent) - I was a bit startled, but she clearly didn't think anything odd was happening, any more than anyone wearing something else. Next time I was already used to it. The local takeaway where I used to get lunch would get groups of kids wandering in with all the varieties of clothing (e.g. fully covered head plus hot pants), chatting away obliviously. You also see quiet older women who clearly do look withdraw and detached, but they're not the majority - and it's not unique to women in hijabs...
I don't think I have ever seen a burqa in Edinburgh or indeed anywhere else in Scotland. I have see a few niqabs in Edinburgh and the odd one in Glasgow.
What concerns me about these clothes is that it is part of a mindset that says I don't want to be a part of your society, I don't want you to look at me, I don't think its appropriate to have anything to do with me as we are not married or related and it is not right for women to have such interaction with men in those circumstances.
Having thought about it I am even more concerned about this if it is true that this reflects the women's mindset than if it is something imposed upon them. For me, immigrants are welcome as long as they integrate and accept our values. This is a very visible demonstration of a repudiation of those values and a desire to stay apart.
Of course we have always accepted counter-cultures up to a point, whether punks, goths, or tattoo aficionados but there is something particularly disturbing (to me) to have such a mindset based around a medieval religion. I still tend to the bans are wrong tendency but I really don't like it.
That is precisely my point. It's not the fact of you or I not liking it which is the issue. It is the fact that such an attitude (and all else that goes with it) is bad for social cohesion in our society. I do not want fellow female British citizens to be required to live in such a way, merely because their ancestors' culture requires it. If some British men have this attitude to some British women - that this is what modesty requires - what does this say about their attitude to other British women who do not dress in this way? That they are immodest? That they are therefore fair game? We have seen the consequences of this attitude in our criminal courts. Allowing this sort of mindset to take hold affects all of us.
The other point is that we are seeing the spread of this attitude amongst people who are not immigrants but who are the second, third or fourth generation - i.e. people born and educated here. The fact that they are becoming ever more separate drives a coach and horses through the lazy assumption often made by those in favour of immigration from very different cultures, namely, that they will integrate over time. This shows that this assumption is not necessarily true, at least for some cultures. And that has implications for public policy which need addressing (and which are not addressed by infantile articles jeering at what garments look like but then saying it's ok to have them).
Based on comments, it's clear that some respondents haven't sweated themselves to actually read Goodwin's article. My takeaways:
It explains why the LDs are wallowing in the single digits. There's a good chunk of the electorate who are quite Old Labour in their outlook, and don't much care for the 'retail offer' of any of the parties.
It's also a harbinger of the likely doom of any UK En Marche equivalent; we're just not in the market for Macrons or Trudeaus.
May is likely in trouble. If you squint enough, folk don't want to leave the EU as a goal; they want reduced immigration. Just relabelling FoM as a 'mobility framework' will not sell. That opposition to immigration is emotional rather than financial (or we could just call 'em xenophobes, because that'll change their minds).
That is correct.
There are voters who are at the same time pro-EU, pro-immigration and diversity, and in favour of free markets, but not many of them, and certainly not many of them outside of upper middle class circles. That viewpoint is not where the centre ground is.
That is precisely my point. It's not the fact of you or I not liking it which is the issue. It is the fact that such an attitude (and all else that goes with it) is bad for social cohesion in our society. I do not want fellow female British citizens to be required to live in such a way, merely because their ancestors' culture requires it. If some British men have this attitude to some British women - that this is what modesty requires - what does this say about their attitude to other British women who do not dress in this way? That they are immodest? That they are therefore fair game? We have seen the consequences of this attitude in our criminal courts. Allowing this sort of mindset to take hold affects all of us.
The other point is that we are seeing the spread of this attitude amongst people who are not immigrants but who are the second, third or fourth generation - i.e. people born and educated here. The fact that they are becoming ever more separate drives a coach and horses through the lazy assumption often made by those in favour of immigration from very different cultures, namely, that they will integrate over time. This shows that this assumption is not necessarily true, at least for some cultures. And that has implications for public policy which need addressing (and which are not addressed by infantile articles jeering at what garments look like but then saying it's ok to have them).
The attitudes of Muslim men to women who do not dress in a "dignified" way is a major complicating factor. I remember doing some sums on what proportion of Muslim men were involved in abuse in places like Rotherham. It was depressingly high and made the argument that the others were unaware of such a mindset barely credible.
My experience is the same as yours, that it is not the generation that has newly arrived, they often try hard to integrate, but those who have been here several generations. Why is this? A part of the answer is the revival of Islam. It is clearly undergoing the sort of revival that Christianity did in our past. This is leading Muslims to look at young people getting drunk or violent in our towns and cities and then going home with whoever they've picked up and thinking that is not the way they want their children to live. You can look at the various prohibition movements in Christianity over the centuries as being driven by similar mindsets. It's quite complicated but we need to put time and effort into bringing society together. And these outfits really don't help.
Given that the majority in this country seem to be swinging firmly behind remaining now the Tories have made such a hash of Brexit the solution seems to be clear.
Give the Tories two years to fuck something up, and the electorate will swing firmly against it.
Good Lord, are people still talking about burqas? Could each poster who mentions them at least mention how many burqas they've seen in the last month?
The only place I can recall seeing any in Britain in the last couple of years was in and around the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel, and even there they were rarae aves.
I actually see quite a lot near me, surprisingly. In the last 4 days I’ve seen 4. None in Cumbria. But we came back to London when this story broke so perhaps we were more aware. A few years ago I was helping a friend look for a flat in Willesden Green and I was astonished to see two shops selling burqas in one of the main shopping streets.
I am able to report that there appears to be a total absence of oppressed women forced to wear the burqa in south Devon.
Must be down to our legendary tolerance.
I suspect there is almost a total absence of Muslims in south Devon, but could be wrong.
Not a total absence. But given the scenery is stunning, the weather often more clement than anywhere further north, the hospitality warm - you might just wonder: why don't we get Muslim families, including women in the burqa? Could it be that on one level, Muslim men KNOW that what they are inflicting on their womenfolk is deeply mysoginistic to British society? And absent groups of similarly clad women and their contolling menfolk, everybody - their wives included - might just see down at the beach how medieval it all looks?
The burqa is not required by Islam; it’s purely a cultural item for some regional groups. A bit like the kilt!
You might well find that there are quite a ferw Moslems in S Devon, it’s just that they don’t wear distinctive clothing. Or there isn’t a support network. Aas a Jewish friend once said tho me, I’d rather go to Westcliff (part of Southend) than other parts of Essex because there’s a Jweish support network there.
There is a Torbay Islamic Centre. Rather tiny. But the local Muslims seem very happy with it.
I don't think I have ever seen a burqa in Edinburgh or indeed anywhere else in Scotland. I have see a few niqabs in Edinburgh and the odd one in Glasgow.
What concerns me about these clothes is that it is part of a mindset that says I don't want to be a part of your society, I don't want you to look at me, I don't think its appropriate to have anything to do with me as we are not married or related and it is not right for women to have such interaction with men in those circumstances.
Having thought about it I am even more concerned about this if it is true that this reflects the women's mindset than if it is something imposed upon them. For me, immigrants are welcome as long as they integrate and accept our values. This is a very visible demonstration of a repudiation of those values and a desire to stay apart.
Of course we have always accepted counter-cultures up to a point, whether punks, goths, or tattoo aficionados but there is something particularly disturbing (to me) to have such a mindset based around a medieval religion. I still tend to the bans are wrong tendency but I really don't like it.
That is precisely my point. It's not the fact of you or I not liking it which is the issue. It is the fact that such an attitude (and all else that goes with it) is bad for social cohesion in our society. I do not want fellow female British citizens to be required to live in such a way, merely because their ancestors' culture requires it. If some British men have this attitude to some British women - that this is what modesty requires - what does this say about their attitude to other British women who do not dress in this way? That they are immodest? That they are therefore fair game? We have seen the consequences of this attitude in our criminal courts. Allowing this sort of mindset to take hold affects all of us.
The other point is that we are seeing the spread of this attitude amongst people who are not immigrants but who are the second, third or fourth generation - i.e. people born and educated here. The fact that they are becoming ever more separate drives a coach and horses through the lazy assumption often made by those in favour of immigration from very different cultures, namely, that they will integrate over time. This shows that this assumption is not necessarily true, at least for some cultures. And that has implications for public policy which need addressing (and which are not addressed by infantile articles jeering at what garments look like but then saying it's ok to have them).
Agreed -but I'd go further. Articles like Johnson's are far more likely to entrench such attitudes rather than convince anyone but the already convinced.
Just look at the odd way that Corbyn's eyes are moving in that Sky News clip. The rapid moving from side to side is not normal - it could almost be interpreted that he does not actually believe what he is saying. As prepared lines go, it is really very weak.
And if he was actually interested in peace dialogues, he would have had conversations over the years with all sides of a conflict - rather than just the one.
That is precisely my point. It's not the fact of you or I not liking it which is the issue. It is the fact that such an attitude (and all else that goes with it) is bad for social cohesion in our society. I do not want fellow female British citizens to be required to live in such a way, merely because their ancestors' culture requires it. If some British men have this attitude to some British women - that this is what modesty requires - what does this say about their attitude to other British women who do not dress in this way? That they are immodest? That they are therefore fair game? We have seen the consequences of this attitude in our criminal courts. Allowing this sort of mindset to take hold affects all of us.
The other point is that we are seeing the spread of this attitude amongst people who are not immigrants but who are the second, third or fourth generation - i.e. people born and educated here. The fact that they are becoming ever more separate drives a coach and horses through the lazy assumption often made by those in favour of immigration from very different cultures, namely, that they will integrate over time. This shows that this assumption is not necessarily true, at least for some cultures. And that has implications for public policy which need addressing (and which are not addressed by infantile articles jeering at what garments look like but then saying it's ok to have them).
The attitudes of Muslim men to women who do not dress in a "dignified" way is a major complicating factor. I remember doing some sums on what proportion of Muslim men were involved in abuse in places like Rotherham. It was depressingly high and made the argument that the others were unaware of such a mindset barely credible.
My experience is the same as yours, that it is not the generation that has newly arrived, they often try hard to integrate, but those who have been here several generations. Why is this? A part of the answer is the revival of Islam. It is clearly undergoing the sort of revival that Christianity did in our past. This is leading Muslims to look at young people getting drunk or violent in our towns and cities and then going home with whoever they've picked up and thinking that is not the way they want their children to live. You can look at the various prohibition movements in Christianity over the centuries as being driven by similar mindsets. It's quite complicated but we need to put time and effort into bringing society together. And these outfits really don't help.
And you think that Boris picaninny/watermelon/letterbox/bank-robber Johnson does ?
Another great day on PB when PB's bien pensant (let's guess, largely) white, comfortable, millions of miles from seeing them every or indeed any day posters discuss the ins and outs and traditions of Islam and the UK's muslims.
That is precisely my point. It's not the fact of you or I not liking it which is the issue. It is the fact that such an attitude (and all else that goes with it) is bad for social cohesion in our society. I do not want fellow female British citizens to be required to live in such a way, merely because their ancestors' culture requires it. If some British men have this attitude to some British women - that this is what modesty requires - what does this say about their attitude to other British women who do not dress in this way? That they are immodest? That they are therefore fair game? We have seen the consequences of this attitude in our criminal courts. Allowing this sort of mindset to take hold affects all of us.
The other point is that we are seeing the spread of this attitude amongst people who are not immigrants but who are the second, third or fourth generation - i.e. people born and educated here. The fact that they are becoming ever more separate drives a coach and horses through the lazy assumption often made by those in favour of immigration from very different cultures, namely, that they will integrate over time. This shows that this assumption is not necessarily true, at least for some cultures. And that has implications for public policy which need addressing (and which are not addressed by infantile articles jeering at what garments look like but then saying it's ok to have them).
The attitudes of Muslim men to women who do not dress in a "dignified" way is a major complicating factor. I remember doing some sums on what proportion of Muslim men were involved in abuse in places like Rotherham. It was depressingly high and made the argument that the others were unaware of such a mindset barely credible.
My experience is the same as yours, that it is not the generation that has newly arrived, they often try hard to integrate, but those who have been here several generations. Why is this? A part of the answer is the revival of Islam. It is clearly undergoing the sort of revival that Christianity did in our past. This is leading Muslims to look at young people getting drunk or violent in our towns and cities and then going home with whoever they've picked up and thinking that is not the way they want their children to live. You can look at the various prohibition movements in Christianity over the centuries as being driven by similar mindsets. It's quite complicated but we need to put time and effort into bringing society together. And these outfits really don't help.
And you think that Boris picaninny/watermelon/letterbox/bank-robber Johnson does ?
Comments
However at least 10% of Leave voters ie mainly upper middle class pro EEA types would switch to Remain rather than go to No Deal Brexit.
The Chequers Deal is the best long term prospect for Brexit as it still ends free movement and deals with the immigration concerns of Leave voters while also getting a Deal with the EU that can reduce the impact on the economy of Brexit
Spectre was dull.
Skyfall mediocre.
Quantum dire.
Casino Royale is not only Craig's best film; it is the best film in the entire series. Were it not for the overlong epilogue, it would have been a perfect Bond film. Sadly for Craig the only was was down following that picture.
Idris would make an excellent Bond. Bring it on.
So you must be right.
The last acceptable form of prejudice?
If you want something original and interesting go and see something like 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing not a franchise like Bond, Star Wars, Mission Impossible or the Avengers
Arguments should be judged based on the strength of their reasoning, not because of where the chap or lady in question was sent to school by their parents when they were 11. That's just weird.
Socks and sandals with a suit (yes, really).
We get this virtually every time there’s a Bond actor changeover. The last “rumour” to be right was Pierce Brosnan taking over from Dalton, and that’s only because it was obvious and public for years.
And the point is that an OE is an OE, whether he decided to become one or not, and "X is an OE" has a lot of informational and predictive value, especially in this context, so I don't see why you consider it an attack or an argument.
The Living Daylights and OHMSS, plus Goldeneye, FRWL, Thunderball and Goldfinger are my favourites.
Octopussy is Moore’s best, and TSWLM is good silly fun.
It could have killed the franchise had Casino Royale not been so good.
Does it every occur to these voters that one day they may have some hard brute luck and need it themselves?
https://www.politico.eu/article/introducing-britain-new-political-party-brexit-remainers-migration/
Convince me otherwise.
Though a more contributory benefits system where you largely get out what you put in would have most support
Also I love that Goodwin, delusional little shitheel that he is, is now claiming "government regulation of big business" as a right wing idea.
I hate to break it to you, dear heart, but what those ideas add up to isn't New Right, it's Old Labour.
- their wives included - might just see down at the beach how medieval it all looks?
The more I think about it, the more disturbing this is. Labour feels comfortable denying something Corbyn himself said he did, and which there are photographs of him doing. And thousands of Corbynites use the denial to call everyone else liars.
5h
Simply trying to be with the majority in every poll is the road to unprincipled ruination because the inner contradictions will find you out.
As an example, the Conservative Party used to believe in lower taxes but now it seems spending is back in fashion with largesse for the NHS and rough sleepers. That may be what the voters want but is that what's right?
Populist parties fail because they try to be all things to all people - cut taxes, fine, Spend more money on public services, fine, Support business, fine, be on the side of the consumer, fine. The circle cannot be squared simply by trying to always be where the majority or largest minority happens to be.
May and Merkel are also interventionists. Being a conservative is not automatically the same as being libertarian
Good piece in the New Statesmen on the LDs.
You might well find that there are quite a ferw Moslems in S Devon, it’s just that they don’t wear distinctive clothing. Or there isn’t a support network. Aas a Jewish friend once said tho me, I’d rather go to Westcliff (part of Southend) than other parts of Essex because there’s a Jweish support network there.
What an absurd point.
Plus higher benefits for those who have worked and contributed is not the same as no welfare at all for others out of work who have not
Saying the niqab is the same as Muslims is like saying the swastika is the same as Germans.
It explains why the LDs are wallowing in the single digits. There's a good chunk of the electorate who are quite Old Labour in their outlook, and don't much care for the 'retail offer' of any of the parties.
It's also a harbinger of the likely doom of any UK En Marche equivalent; we're just not in the market for Macrons or Trudeaus.
May is likely in trouble. If you squint enough, folk don't want to leave the EU as a goal; they want reduced immigration. Just relabelling FoM as a 'mobility framework' will not sell. That opposition to immigration is emotional rather than financial (or we could just call 'em xenophobes, because that'll change their minds).
Although why it's suspicious for a member of the LFI to stand up for widows of tortured and murdered Israelis is beyond me. But then I'm not a swivel-eyed, paranoid antisemite.
What concerns me about these clothes is that it is part of a mindset that says I don't want to be a part of your society, I don't want you to look at me, I don't think its appropriate to have anything to do with me as we are not married or related and it is not right for women to have such interaction with men in those circumstances.
Having thought about it I am even more concerned about this if it is true that this reflects the women's mindset than if it is something imposed upon them. For me, immigrants are welcome as long as they integrate and accept our values. This is a very visible demonstration of a repudiation of those values and a desire to stay apart.
Of course we have always accepted counter-cultures up to a point, whether punks, goths, or tattoo aficionados but there is something particularly disturbing (to me) to have such a mindset based around a medieval religion. I still tend to the bans are wrong tendency but I really don't like it.
There are voters who are at the same time pro-EU, pro-immigration and diversity, and in favour of free markets, but not many of them, and certainly not many of them outside of upper middle class circles. That viewpoint is not where the centre ground is.
Here's just one of a big list:
"A backlash from the generals and MI5
– Work on the assumption that MI6 and the military are not sympathetic and will work against a possible Corbyn government.
– Have to identify the difference between covert and overt action. For example, the use of the state against the miners and activists and covert action by MI5/6 and the military.
– Challenge the idea that “that kind of thing doesn’t happen here” by explaining some past events –e.g. Conspiracy against Wilson government; troops at Heathrow in 1974 during period of political and economic crisis.*
– Beware of threat of blackmailing senior labour figures.
– Understand how the state can sow discord inside leftist organisations, creating an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust.
– Learn from the coping tactics of communities who are singled out by the state e.g. Muslim communities and other minorities. Build mutual solidarity with them.
– Openly confront secret services and make public what they are doing and make them accountable for their actions.
– Be on the lookout for whistleblowers and leaks from within the state.
– Use the existence of a mass movement to defend the government.
– Work with organisations and left lawyers to develop an alternative legal system"
https://realdemocracymovement.org/first-steps-in-scenario-planning-to-defend-a-corbyn-government/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzBVCcpn_iY
“– Set up a study of how to shrink the financial sector.
– Make plans for an international conference to plan a post-neoliberal economy.”
The other point is that we are seeing the spread of this attitude amongst people who are not immigrants but who are the second, third or fourth generation - i.e. people born and educated here. The fact that they are becoming ever more separate drives a coach and horses through the lazy assumption often made by those in favour of immigration from very different cultures, namely, that they will integrate over time. This shows that this assumption is not necessarily true, at least for some cultures. And that has implications for public policy which need addressing (and which are not addressed by infantile articles jeering at what garments look like but then saying it's ok to have them).
https://thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
The characterisation of Harold Wilson as paranoid does not take account of the political context of the time, which was characterised by a paranoid political style generally which applied to both left and right (including MI5 itself). The suspicion of Wilson and others towards the unlawful activities of the security services and other right wing figures resulted from concrete domestic and international developments discussed in more detail below. Andrew is correct to be sceptical, and there remains limited evidence of a ‘plot’, if a plot is defined as a tightly organised high-level conspiracy with a detailed plan.
However there is evidence of a conspiracy: a loosely connected series of unlawful manoeuvres against an elected government by a group of like-minded figures."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theories
But let's be honest here: you can guarantee that intelligence services have dossiers half a mile long on Corbyn and his collaborators. They're going to be automatically biased against him if nothing else for the increased workload he's caused them over the years.
Of course, nobody actually needs to sow dissent and division in left wing orgs, they're perfectly capable of doing that without any government intervention.
My experience is the same as yours, that it is not the generation that has newly arrived, they often try hard to integrate, but those who have been here several generations. Why is this? A part of the answer is the revival of Islam. It is clearly undergoing the sort of revival that Christianity did in our past. This is leading Muslims to look at young people getting drunk or violent in our towns and cities and then going home with whoever they've picked up and thinking that is not the way they want their children to live. You can look at the various prohibition movements in Christianity over the centuries as being driven by similar mindsets. It's quite complicated but we need to put time and effort into bringing society together. And these outfits really don't help.
Give the Tories two years to fuck something up, and the electorate will swing firmly against it.
He is truly beneath contempt.
Not that he gives a damn.
And if he was actually interested in peace dialogues, he would have had conversations over the years with all sides of a conflict - rather than just the one.
Corbyn was there and knew what was going on. The Labour official line of the past 24 hours has collapsed as the lie it clearly was from the outset.
Javid is right to say that ANY other leader of a major political party would have quit over something like this.
Only Daniel Craig could pull this off.
The dialogue from this scene is one of the text/ring tones on my phone
https://youtu.be/LE1evIbc3mw