Tories who use this line are like tedious parents who tolerate no complaints from their children. If you don’t like it, don’t eat it! There are starving children who would be grateful for your mother’s burnt and toxic shepherds pie. Tories, always paternalistic. Free speech for me not you, wealth for me, not you. How is this type of argument any sort of rebuttal to Braverman’s aggressive rhetoric? How is Braverman’s aggressive rhetoric good Government?
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1635582305795207168 And there you have it, from the horse's arse.
In case people don’t know what the Attenborough thing is, there is a sixth episode of Wild Isles that won’t be shown. Sources claim this is because it deals with climate change and habitat loss, considered too critical of vested interests. The BBC say it was never meant to be part of the series and it was commissioned, but not for viewing. It’ll be on iPlayer. Hmm. https://apple.news/Anbhk7EkDS6SMc8ItJcV_lg
‘Denys Finch Hatton, member for Kenilworth and Southam said: “No hard feelings. After all, we love the BBC almost as much as we love the NHS.’ Full article. https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/tories-expected-to-take-crushing-defeat-well-20230314232703
My point was not meant to be interpreted in the sole context of 'Linekerfarce', nor was it partisan. It was simply an observation that Teide's comment would logically lead to the BBC only being allowed to issue content 'satisfactory' to the aims of the government of the day, no matter what political persuasion. The idea that the BBC must 'toe the line on serious issues' is, per se, indicative of that train of thought and can lead only to a government-controlled media. If any government is concerned about having their policies highlighted as dubious, then the solution is clear: vigorously defend them, or change them; what should not happen is that the criticisms themselves should be silenced. At no time did Lineker equate 2020s UK to 1930s Nazi Germany; what he did was to draw a parallel between the LANGUAGE being used by certain members of the present government and the language used by many parties (not solely the Nazis even if they were the main protagonists) at the start of the 1930s in Germany. It has been pointed out in previous posts that it was the use of increasingly polarising and demonising language that created an environment in Germany within which subsequent horrors became acceptable. Where CRT comes into all this I am not sure, apart from a realisation it is one of your pet betes noires. And what are the BBC attitudes to 'race, segregation of job applications and over-representation of minority groups'? I am not aware of them being publicly announced. The whole question of 'illegal immigration' is far from a cut-and-dried issue in the way the current government is trying to portray it. One of the main current failings is a lack of feasible 'legal' ways to apply to come into the UK, so the distinction between justified and unjustified attempts to enter becomes almost impossible to identify. Nor is the much-trumpeted 'first safe country' concept actually a part of international law relating to refugees. The claim that 'opening up the borders to all comers' can be described as 'fascism' simply chooses to redefine the meaning of 'fascism' in such a way as to change its meaning so completely as to render it meaningless. That is not to say I don't understand your concern with the matter, but it really cannot be called 'fascism'.
ISTR that this final episode had both lot of its funding from those reactionary pinko trots at the WWF and the RSPB in addition to them having editorial control over the episode's content.
I think the lesson to be learned from this Lineker business is that solidarity won the day! The noblest of human spirits. Sacrificing yourself to support someone else, because it's the right thing to do. If Wright, Shearer, the commentators etc had just carried on as normal, Lineker would still be suspended and probably sacked. On your own, it's easy for the rich and powerful to crush you. When we all stand together, they don't stand a chance. Please remember that is the reason why you must NEVER cross a picket line.
Oh yes, not the Tory Party or its donors or the hugely rich owners of its press. A few ex footballers and moderately paid commentators are now the ruling class. Come on Lloyd, this is weak beer m8.
Yes it is. It is pure economic fascism. Open the borders against the wishes of the majority and subsidise corporations with tax payers money, to pay foreign workers, doing jobs that Britons could do. The only difference between that and Mussolini was that he didn’t open the borders to do it. That part is just a little nuance that the poster, who made that suggestion, threw in for good measure. The fact that people describe fascist economies without even knowing the implications of what they say is not my fault. The poster’s opinion, that they are not a fascist (nor do I accuse them of being one), has no consequence on the fact that what they described was a policy straight out of Il Duce’s most fevered nationalist totalitarian dreams. It is something they stumbled upon, perhaps, but, as an idea, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Someone tell me I am wrong. I am expressing an opinion here. I am deliberately not making this personal, I am addressing what the poster said, I am not making anything up. If this gets silly, it is not me doing it.
Quick - and genuine - question, instead of paying thousands to people smugglers to paddle across the channel in a blow-up rubber dinghy why don't the Albanian migrants jump on a plane? you can fly from Tirana to Stanstead for around 70 quid (admittedly with Wizz Air, so they probably get better customer service from the people smugglers)
I am happy to tell you that you are wrong and that it is not 'economic fascism', whatever that may be. Having a working and controlled immigration and asylum system is not the same as 'opening the borders' to all and sundry, and I'm surprised that you have decided to subscribe to that trope. The 'living wage' issue is more relevant to existing 'British citizens' who cannot adequately live on what they are paid than it is to the fate of any putative successful applicants for the right to claim residency or refugee status in UK; to conflate the two seems to misrepresent the gist of both arguments. You are not 'making anything up', but you are insisting that your own idiosyncratic way of defining terms is THE TRUTH and that you have PROVEN IT. Neither is the case.
Right. So opening the borders to all comers against the wishes of the tax paying majority (therefore a government imperative, not a people's imperative) is not an act of authoritarian fascim? Funny how far we have come since 1945, when it would have been recognised immediately for what it was, by a country that had just defeated fascism in a world-wide scale. And subsidising corporate wages to all workers, including those in coming citizens of the world (to the tune of 24k) is not economic fascism? I accept that you do not think it is. But I also believe that anyone familiar with early 20 Century fascist Italian economics, with regards to state benefits subsidising low corporate wages, will most likely disagree with you. In my opinion, what was described by the poster is a supra-iteration of what Musolinni was doing. I invite people to check it out and decide for themselves.
Today’s new culture war onslaught. The MCC wanted to reduce the number of games played at Lords and increase participation for local kids. This could have threatened the longstanding Eton V Harrow cricket game. But brave Eton and Harrow said no! And now it’s a thing for the Country to squabble over! Huzzah! How JRM saw it and below BBC News’s explanation. https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/64964074
Johnson has been selected to fight for his Uxbridge and Ruislip seat at the next election. There has been thoughts that he may be offered a safer one. In the meantime, he could face a recall if he is found to have misled Parliament and 10% of constituents demand it. https://news.sky.com/story/boris-jo...tion-after-suggestions-of-safer-seat-12835826
So standing up for a long running tradition that would be at the heart of establishing cricket’s world wide popularity is now an aggressive act of war against our culture? I find that difficult to take seriously. Surely the aggressive act is to erase that tradition, to strike down a cultural norm, and not to continue with it? Perhaps they could suggest holding the boat race on the stretch of the Colne between Tesco and Silk Mill next? Or holding the Grand National on ponies in Oxhey Park? Whatever it is, even if removing the fixture from Lords isn’t an act of cultural warfare (I have even less idea than I have interest), standing up for it is not, in my opinion, an aggressive act against progressivism or British culture. Talk about embarrassing “first world” issues.
He did have a mahusive majority. Will be interesting to see what happens, esp if there is a recall vote.
We need an 8% swing and the boundary changes will favour Labour so fingers crossed. I might for the first time in my life tactical vote.
Judging how shyte they all were at their jobs - did they all go into the sewage industry? https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nisters-officials-jobs-old-policy-briefs-2017
Liz Truss honours list - House of Lords for Mark ******* Littlewood of the IEA, chief cheerleader for Truss's disastrous budget, and Matthew ******* Elliot, who bankrolled Brexit. ****s.
I'm with Stephen Fry on this. Your long running tradition and "cultural norm" is actually "turgid snobbery and elitism". I presume your kids don't go to Eton or Harrow? So why would you be in favour of maintaining their elitism and keeping all the best activities just for themselves? Why would you be against opening things up and letting regular kids have a chance?
That one in the middle, Gavin Williamson, the absolute image of a jumped up shyte. Look at the tilt of the head and that grim expression. Utter, utter hijo de puta.
There is an idiotic tendency in this Country to believe that the ruling class’s traditions are somehow a shared value. That every man and woman in the UK has a stake in privileged boys having a knock about. When you think about it, that for 200 years, these schools have got to play their dreary match at the home of English cricket, it looks completely bizarre. They could play their game anywhere. That the likes of Rees Mogg and co were so up in arms, shows you what an utter lie ‘levelling up’ is. It’s doublethink. It’s doing the bare minimum to avoid having to level up in any meaningful way.
There's nothing embarrassing about creating a fair and equitable society in a first world state which is palpably and visibly not so. The tradition of Harrow playing Eton is not being threatened. They are merely asked to play elsewhere. Given that unlike most schools they already have enormous grounds they could play home or away. No one in their right mind would suggest a boating race on the Colne given it's state or depth or a Grand National at Oxhey Park. That's just you being silly and trying to detract from the issue at hand. Harrow versus Eton has nothing to do with popularizing the game or indeed the MCC itself. For decades a slow moving, insular, elitist group that has slowed the development of cricket globally considerably compared to other sports that grew in the late Victorian period into their modern forms. The question that should be asked is why so many schools lack sports facilities ? Why do so many kids not even have the chance to play cricket ? Why many schools are selling off their grounds to stay afloat. Just because two schools filled with parents who are extremely privileged feel their noses put out of joint by not having their little darlings playing at Lords should not be what we're worried about. What also should be of concern is the number of these types who end up in the upper echelons of business and industry and government despite lacking any aptitude and still having the old boys network to help them out. Until we become a true meritocracy no one should rest. Nor shall my sword sleep until we have built Jerusalem in Englands green and pleasant land.
Proof positive that people will vote for the colour of the rosette whoever or whatever it is pinned on: Poling forecast as at yesterday.
