Posts by casablanca

    Armitage, I've selected points from your impressive posting #237 to offer a few comments. I'm pretty sure I haven't misrepresented your main thrust but, if so, please tell me in no uncertain terms!

    BLM are targeting the destruction of the core pillars of Western Civilised society, not because they want to replace them with something that is better.

    What core pillars of Western civilised society are BLM-ers targeting? (I assume BLM-ers are mostly black but with a fair amount of support from simpatico whites). In what way are they trying to topple or r-arrange those pillars?

    BLM is not to improve society by ridding it of racism, just to destroy those pillars, our established norms, culture and traditions in an act of revenge for everything that white people have done.

    Still, asking, how are they going to do that? And how is revenge going to help do that? Is there an assumption in your mind (or BLM-ers’) that revenge is going to unite blacks and whites? Have you ever thought it might do the complete opposite, in providing a rational justification for the prejudice that comes from stereotyping?

    In other words everyone has to suffer (from excessive enforcement) because of the lack of respect for the law of a few mindless idiots and this is the parallel with racism

    I assume your parallel here is of a few mindless black haters causing race hate laws to become obsessive, exaggerated and draconian. I think the BLM movement has uncovered a deeper complaint about black prejudice. That it isn’t just operating among a minority of black hating hooligans (where a little of them goes a long way, especially with the help of the media, which has the unintended consequence of legitimising and hence recruiting more of such evil, gullible or retarded black haters into the fold. From much of that hear or read about black prejudice from those blacks on the receiving end, it is more subtle, hence more insidious and hence more soul-destroying than just overt mindless acts of prejudice such as banana throwing. I agree with Bibbles that most black people worth their salt will be encouraged by such uncivilised black prejudice that they can leave the stadium walking and feeling superior to those types of white. The more worrying accusation that can be hurled at the non-hooligan white establishment is their unwillingness or inability or lack of sufficient concern to expose and punish the behaviour of black-hating hooligans. More worrying because that is what makes black prejudice so insidious, as it translates into social, economic and political discomfort, hardship and rejection in a society where the dominant power in numbers or money lies with white citizens.

    Most of us are not racist or certainly not in any way that would cause problems in everyday society

    Your caveat “or certainly not in any way that would cause problems” is precisely the point I disagree with which I have laboured to explain in my paragraph above. It’s not the antisemitism or ruthless pursuit of an Aaryan by the likes of Hitler, Heydrich, Mendel, et aal that fired up the post-Holocaust sensitivity of Jews but rather the blind eye of German citizens as the Jew-packed trains rumbled their way to Auchswitz, Dachau, Treblinka etc.

    We are, the most of us, no more racist that our non-white fellow citizens and neighbours.

    Cleverly and carefully phrased that way, maybe you’re right. But I’m pretty sure black people on the receiving end of black prejudice do not feel that these other prejudices are their concern. They have enough to worry about!

    Most of us (the overwhelming majority) manage to go to football matches without throwing bananas at the black players ……… for black politicians, be treated by black doctors and nurses …… invite them into our homes ……

    But there it stops! “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?” sets out where the red line falls. And that was with Dr Sidney Poitier in a suit and the white daughter’s parents, Hepburn and Tracy,, as model liberal democrats. Today black people can sit anywhere on a bus but in terms of social acceptance and a level playing field in job application, they are still nearer the back of the bus.

    If racism is a cancer it should be surgically removed …..

    How do you find it? And how do you remove it? You later say that the next step is that it “needs to be dealt with”. Or as Tommy Cooper used to say after a stupidly inept magic trick “just like that!”. What we need is a lifelong vaccination against black prejudice. Good luck with that. Keir Starmer is happy to kill the roots of antisemitism by being the first Labour bigwig to undergo “Unconscious bias training”. The trouble is that a bias, conscious or unconscious, doesn’t have to be a prejudice. It could just as easily be a viewpoint, belief or instinct that has formed itself without conscious thought or self-analysis. The presumption that the bias is inherently negative, immoral, at odds with current-day social precepts of fairness, goodness and decency, is in itself rather Kafkaesque. It is monumentally stupid as well as downright scary to suggest or demand that someone who disagrees with the sense or intended purpose of the message “Black Lives Matter” should be subjected to analysis of their unconscious biases.

    Having queried your recipe, let me end with my own: blacks need to redirect their energy away from feeling depressed or angry about all those years of prejudice and subjugation by whites, and towards trying to find commonality rather promote their black self-identity in a mixed race society. This is especially required in a society predominantly white in numbers and economic power. Granted, blacks are having to climb the ladder from a low base and they will have to duck and weave around the snakes. Assuming they want to escape from their self-made ghetto lifestyle in search of enough common ground with the whites to create mutual respect, it would will help if they don’t dress like pimps, or sport weird haircuts, or turn the car window up or the volume down if they want play rap while driving through quiet neighbourhoods. It would also greatly help all concerned if their procreation could be deliberate rather than an accident, where both parents stay together to raise a decent rather than delinquent family, so that us whiteys have a better chance of walking along a dark uncrowded street without getting mugged or knifed. We in the white society must be prepared to meet blacks halfway, measure for measure, and that certainly has to include the police. Because right now, if I was black, I’d feel safer with robocops.

    You're right, the high street bloodbath started well before Cov 19, with 3 years frigging around with Brexit and with a Prime Minister who would probably be more successul in fulfilling expectations if she had pursued a career as a funeral director. And even before Brexit, thanks to the OPM largesse of Labour, we had austerity, with the first row of nails in the high street coffin led by Amazon and all the other on-line suppliers. It needn't have been that kind of bloodbath if local authorities and planners weren't like death's head at a feast, effortlessly creating or nurturing all the disincentives to buy in local shopping high streets. They say variety is the spice of life. Yet most of the shopping high streets were interchangeable, with the same chain stores


    Why thank anyone for keeping a thread up to date when all they do is send newspaper weblinks about things they know nothing about, can't be bothered to find out what it's about, can't even be bothered to read the weblink which shows a huge photograph of the shop and says underneath that they're a "fashion giant", which would have disposed of the need to ask "don't know them, what do they sell?" or go to google and type H&M and see for themselves or, God forbid, make a comment.

    I mean, for Chrissakes!

    Thanks for telling me what MSM means

    I already knew what Woke meant. My question was aimed at those with a sense of humour

    As for MLM being created by Marxists, I'm sure they support all manner of things (including Palestinians) that they undobtedly haul in fellow protesters who can be persuaded to undermine a society that is capitalist or centre-to-right wing.

    Global order is in danger from this mass-stupidity virus and there is no vaccine.

    I think we're on the same wavelength on BLM


    • IMG-20200629-WA0003[2].jpg

    Okay, I give up, what does MSM stand for?

    Is is okay to describe ordinary people who are waking up as woke?

    Is your post saying Marxists have bought into BLM? I don't have the qualifications to glean that from your daily mail weblink, viz an infinite capacity for and immunity from boredom coupled with a degree in Boolean algebra. If Marxists buy into BLM, why the consternation? I thought Marxists were besotted with pleb equality (so much easier to level down than up), which surely makes BLM a slam dunk for them.

    As for for news link of the possible connection of Marxism veresus the Jews, they're both crazy mixed up kids and maybe it varies by season, eg whether there is a J in the month. Or maybe there was scrollnib error in the original Shakespeare manuscript ing, where what Shylock wanted from Antonio was a pound or flesh rather than a pound of flesh. To think, the holocaust might never have haappened if it wasn't for that mistake of one letter which has given Jews such a bad rap.

    Tricky terrain comes into play when so many white people have sincere rational reasons for expecting to dislike people who happen to be black, regardless of whether black people are observed to be a minority or majority. Whatever the reasons offered, there is the accusation or suspicion of colour prejudice; even mentioning observed white vs black distinguishing traits or behaviour are socially verboten.

    Jews use a unique yet similar line of argument when so many people are criticising Israel for being so beastly and unyielding towards Palestinians, insisting it is irrefutable proof of antisemitism. Gentiles can argue until they are blue in the face that they are criticising Israel, not Jews but the counter-argument by Jews is that Israel is being picked on by gentiles incessantly for being mean to Palestinians whereas other countries who are much worse in other things don't picked on nearly as much. There may well be some truth in this. The problem which jews have is that they don't do themselves any favours by anointing Israel as the sole home of the Judaism. It means that Israel and Jews become two sides of the same coin. No other religion has a single country that has taken upon itself the entire burden of shouldering the prejudice that exists against Judaism. Even in predominantly black Africa, there are some black countries which are far more criticised than others for violence, corruption or incompetence.

    Similarly with black people it isn't just a matter skin colour. If research could prove that observed or predicted personality or behavioural traits - or even IQ - showed no significant difference between whites and blacks, then to dislike blacks per se would have to be viewed as pure black prejudice. For a white person to then defend that prejudice on the grounds of claimed personal experience would be rightly rejected as fake justification or plain ignorance of what is clearly a case of black prejudice.

    Unfortunately, research reveals that there are significant differences between black and white people in behaviour, attitudes and traits. Whether these differences are caused by skin colour or by the oppressions of white colonialism cannot alter the reality that such differences exist. The question then arises as to whether white people today should have a legal, moral or social obligation to share the blame of their predecessors and make the necessary allowances for any observed or predicted differences between blacks and whites. This is a tough ask when turning a blind eye in the here & now to differences that can give rise to negative consequences. When prediction, profiling, initial impressions and even intuition come about from personal experience or reliable data rather than just bad dreams or socialising with white supremacists, what is a decent well-intentioned but fearful or apprehensive white person supposed to do? To see a couple of black people and cross over a lonely street for fear of getting knifed and mugged becomes in itself a message of black prejudice and could even provoke getting knifed or mugged. Almost all of our decisions in life are based on judged probabilities, whether factual or intuitive.

    All that decent fair-minded white people can and should do is, when faced with an opportunity or moral obligation to make a choice between a white and black person, is to base their decision on the merit of the person rather than associations created by the colour of the person's skin. Surely the least we can do for any black people as individuals rather than a group stereotype is to give each of them the benefit of the doubt.

    Estate Agents are the latest ones to jump on the badwaggon/distance themselves from slavery (depending which way you look at it):

    Apparently, they are to stop using the term 'Master Bedroom' because they believe it could offend their more socially aware clients because it may be thought of as having links to slavery and be viewed as sexist.

    During a discussion about in on this mornings 'Sunday Morning Live' show on BBC1, an Asian woman said that there was a lot to be done, but that this was "not the way forward".

    Can there be a bedroom that is especially for blacks because ..... well, because they matter?

    What about a bedroom for sado masochists? Is there a rissk that all the chains and padlocks would be misconstrued as slavery equipment?

    1 Most of the dept stores are gone now and what exactly do you think they would need to do to survive, for those that are still around?

    2 The problem is that most of our town centres unlike American or Australian towns, were never designed with the car in mind (it hadn't been invented, nether had large shops) so we're stuck with medieval infrastructure. Unless cash strapped councils bulldoze entire town centres and redesign them, I don't see how the situation will improve. Do you?

    1 I still think dept store "theatre" is the driver. Or call it "Larger than Life". Or stimulation. Places like Harrods, Selfridges, Harvey Nichols fit that bill, as do Bloomendales, Macy's, Sachs, etc in Manhatten. Shopping is either more chore than stimulation or the other way around. Debenhams was the antithesis of stimulation. So is becoming John Lewis but it's franchise is more middle and upper clases and that's keepig it afloat but maybe not for much longer. When shopping becomes a chore, along comes Amazon et al.

    2 Go to a place like Marylebone High Street and you'll see a way for a shopping street to survive. A high proportion of original individual retailers rather than a soul destroying unvarying succession of chain stores which renders every shopping street samey. The other part of the recipe is to mix original and interesting shops with cafes, bars, restaurants, art galleries, book shops, market day, gym, health clinic, pet shop, garden centre, hairdresser, auction house, etc. Visiting such a steet becomes pleasurable, interesting, stimulating, a way of life. Car parking can be a mile or two away and free of charge (or paid for with a compcard for any retail purchase of £5+). Dull unimaginative obstructive local authorities need to be exposed and/or overseen by central government (which would mean a shopping czar department within the appropriate ministry).

    Just skimming your post, you may have misunderstood me.

    I was specifically asking whether we were going to the American system where many many civil servants do not have permanent posts and change with each new president.

    Drat, I wrote all that for nothing! Your question which I accepted for its direct simplicity seemed more lofty and interesting than the one Cove shrugged away about whether there will be American style confirmation hearings if each UK PM chooses their "senior civil servants".

    Actually on reflection, you're right, it is an interesting question that Gove at least admitted was interesting but still wouldn't engage. And I don't blame him in the slightest for not doing so. My answer which would have sent Parlia ment to sleep would have been that in US politics it seems counter productive to have a president permitted to choose his own "senior civil servant type" but then require him to get the approval for his selection from other politicians before his choice can go through. It's a good example of how American procedures can paralyse decsion-making

    But then again, if I was a more independent- or radical-minded Gove - I'd go on to say that the downside of a president or PM choosing his own "civil servants" is in creating his very own "stacked deck" of yes-men/servants rather than independent minds. But can you imagine how tricky it would be for a Republican president to be stuck with American senior civil servants who had until then been serving a Democrat government and felt loyal and committed while doing so?.

    So we now arrive at the $64,000 question: can a senior civil servant (or its American equivalent) be entirely impartial about the Government they serve? And concomitantly, would a president or PM want such impartiality? I'd want a senior civil servant to have a genuine commitment to what my party is seeking to do for my country. I'd want people, not androids. I would find total impartiality almost tantamount to indifference. I certainly wouldn't want people who might be faking their new allegiance but in truth were more in favour of the aims and policies of the previous encumbent - or, even for that matter, the previous encumbent of the very same party. If I was Boris I wouldn't want a senior civil service who thought Theresa May was a great PM t work with.

    So I guess the question is: what should the civil service be? My answer is that at the lower level, the apparatchiks, who have clearly defined tasks, their ressponsibility is to do their straightforward job without exercising personal preferences or bias for which in any event there is little or no scope in the work they have to do (unless they hell bent on sabotage). But the senior civil servant must surely be an extension of and serve the will of the prime minster and his cabinet, not just out of professional objectivity but also rational and emotional sincere commitment.

    These subtle shades of senior "civil servant" objectivity vs commitment were wonderfully conveyed in that tv series West Wing. For me, there has never been anything on screen quite that good on politics. House of Games (Cards?) was merely watchable and entertaining.


    Does that answer your question?!

    Well, actually, looking at some of your earlier comments, it's pretty obvious you agree with me about that need for real committment at the senior civil servant level

    I agree.

    Do you think we're heading towards the American system here?

    Aaaaaaah, what a relief, thank you, someone who agrees with me !!!

    Seriously, I'm not sure. I don't know how you define the difference.

    The short answer is that even prior the BLM riots there has been a lot more in recent years that I don't like about America (although so far I have refrained from sharing that view with my cousins in Boston and New York!)

    When I watch and compare US senate committee hearings with UK Parliamentary Select Committees I don't see much difference - both are pathetic and abhorrent and the political profile around the table makes the rhetorical questions almost 100% predictable and self-serving close to 0% relevant.

    I keep getting mixed up in the functions and powerplay betwen US House of Representatives and Senate but the differences in how they are each stacked in Republicans versus Democrats is, as I see it, used to override or abuse rather than uphold democracy. I see that same tendency - sometimes more subtly revealed - in our Parliament, never more disgracefully than during the Brexit debates discussion. I'm 100% sure that on both sides of the pond the public have never voted for those kind of games.

    On both sides of the pond I find it deeply saddening that governments can't control their citizens and that the system is so incompetent, flawed, bureacratic and heartless, regardless of where it originates from along the right-left continuum. One thing has come home to me in the last few weeks: neither the US nor UK government can take a toughline to control its protesting and law-breaking and out-of-control citizens when the numbers in that uprising have surged to such huge numbers, while the number of police and military defence remains so finite. Such is the consequence and lessons learned by government about the downside of permissiveness, free speech, societal freedom and paying so much heed to the feelings and ideologies of youth.

    Both sides of pond have governments that support capitalism rather than Marxism. To be fair to America, even with Bernie Sanders on the loose, Marxism was never the close escape in America as we thought at one time it might have been when Labour saw an opportunity to ride into number 10 on the back of the have-nots - and then in the nick of time Boris rode in to the rescue as the ultimate antidote to the vacuouness of Maybotism and the insubstantiality of Cameronism.

    Yet here we in the UK, just like in America, with people existing & expiring in the streets. I'm all for chasing a higher standard of living but I just cannot undertstand why neither government (UK or US) refuses to impose a minimum standard of poverty, just enough degrees above rock bottom to not abandon humanity standards in a first world nation. There is no need to go so far as to convert a street sleeping destitute into a social benefits scrounger. We must never provide a safety net or incentive for such characters; but if we were able to build in a matter of days or weeks some Cov 19 giant structures of beds and facilities to care for Cov 19 patients, we can do the same thing for people lying and dying on the streets. It woudn't hurt tax payers all that much and the super-rich would hardly object and nor would they accuse the government of a major redistribution of wealth. With global finance and differences in tax rates and laws from one country to another, any attempt at a significant redistribution of wealth would find the money and its owners lying somewhere else in the sun and potential foreign investors flying right past the UK to other more enlightened and smarter climates of opportunity.

    I think this difference in politics will be affected by the fact that, in the US, the have-nots tend to respect, admire, identify with and even aspire to extreme wealth, whereas in the UK an alarmingly high percentage of have-nots envy, resent, dissociate from and want to confiscate such wealth. I see that difference in attitude as one of the UK's biggest obstacles to success. I think if anyone can bridge that gap, it is probably Boris Johnson, who I think is moulding the Conservative party to a centrist policy somewhere between Biden/Clinton-ish Democrats and the less ugly Republicans - and in the context of the UK that still tilts a bit right of centre.

    Final thought: will the UK draw closer to the US under Trump or Biden? I think in either case we will draw closer if, post Brexit, we can get a good trade relationship with the US. Trading-wise both Biden and Trump can't give away much to the UK without losing Americaan votes. Personally, I think Trump will resolve that conflict more convincingly than Biden. But it may in the end depend on the Cov 19 death count on the one hand versus whether America shows real signs of turning the corner economically on the other hand, in which case I think American voters (the ones who can vote because they didn't die!) will side with prosperity under Trump.


    Classic example of an arrogant supremacist, or should that be fascist?

    Don't you know? When you look up these words, do you skip reading the meaning because your head start to ache?

    Certainly thesedays, thanks to an over-surplus of knuckleheads, both words are derogatory and indelibly linked to racism. In particular, supremacism has for the last 300-400 years almost always been interpreted as "white supremacism".

    Discrimination can also put on on shaky ground, even in spite of the fact that most humans may discriminate on the basis of such factors as sex, age, criminal record, weight, disability, genetic analysis, manners, manner of dress, etc etc – where these etceteras are bound include absolutely anything which is differentiate-able, which inevitably will include skin colour, country of origin religion and political allegiances or beliefs.

    Discrimination falls foul of the law and is morally questionable when it influences the observer’s decision or behaviour in a way which excludes privileges or services or favourable decisions in a way which is irrational, without foundation and hence unjust.

    Because skin colour discrimination is such a red hot topic, woe betide any white person who discriminates on the basis of any items on the list above, if it so happens that the person being discriminated against (eg refused a privilege) happens to be non-white.

    As for fascism that's far too subtle for you. It was first used to describe totalitarian right-wing nationalism (as exemplified by Mussolini, Franco, Hitler). But fascism also is about believing in the supremacy of a national group based on political or financial ideals rather than solely ethnic ideals. It also includes a contempt for pure democracy and a favouring of a powerful leader with an an above average degree of autocracy. The point I'm making is that only binary knuckleheads - or people like you - use these words as absolute labels rather than as opposites ends of a continuum.

    BTW: I enjoy replying to you at length. Your psuedonym avatar is appropriate here in that it's like the satisfaction one gets from training a dog except that with you the attempt is utterly futile. Actually, perhaps not so much futile as unnecessary, inasmuch that the dog in your avatar is probably superior to you. That's cannine supremacy for you!

    1 Yes, I actually saw the comments that May made. She is pissed off, because Boris is moving Brexiteers into prominent positions. (For context, for those who are not following this, Boris appointed David Frost whose currently doing the EU negotiations as his next security adviser).

    2 Just after May's snipe to Gove in the Commons earlier, another conservative (brexit) MP asked Gove a interesting question and that was that if the PM is to have American style political appointments now, will there be American style confirmation hearings to go along with this new way of doing things? Gove made no real reply to that, but thought it was a interesting observation.

    1 Even out of office one cannot deny Theresa May's natural talent to make herself shine through as outstandingly ineffectual

    2 Gove "thought it was a interesting observation". Isn't that "Parliament-speak" for an observation that doesn't merit any reply? Of the 650 or so MP's in Parliament (actual or virtual) this MP's question is in itself a perfect example of the need to reduce the number of constituencies or districts areas that gain entry to Pariament from the current about 650 (approx), most of whom are deadbeats, to say 80, most of whom have shown themselves to have merit.

    Ok, it's a secure job with promising career prospects - the sort of career the old careers master at my old school would recommend along with accountancy, medicine,, and banking

    It may have it's faults but I believe it has served us well and protected us from the extremes of politicians which is why Cummings hates them

    To me,i f it ain't broke then leave it alone

    The effective partnership of the presiding elected government and the unelected civil service is broke. It's been broke for a longtime. The country is becoming increasingly broke, financially and socially . This country's version of democracy is broke. The intelligence of the electorate has been broke for a long time and it can only get worse as young people become stupider yet coddled by Government because, God help us, they are tomorrow's voters.

    But it's not just young people who have trouble thinking properly. Below is an example of the kind of lunacy that is part of public opinion, both among arrogant impressionable uncontrollaable youth and elderly feeble-minded reactionaries (who are so ignorant that most don't even know what reactionary means. Both factions are sending Britain down the toilet bowl.

    The problem:

    "I simply object to this country currently being run by an unelected person who is accountable to nobody and who is hell bent on destroying our civil service which has served this country well in my lifetime and protected us from the extremes of politicians, which is why Cummings hates them. To me, if it ain't broke then leave it alone"


    I simply object to this country currently being run by an unelected person who is accountable to nobody

    Cummings is unelected, is not running the country, indeed, is accountable to those who are elected

    who is hell bent on destroying our civil service

    Not destroying but changing its function, to become accountable (none too soon) to those who are elected

    which has served this country well

    This country is not doing at all well and hasn't for some time now

    and protected us from the extremes of politicians

    If true (which it is not) it would mean the unelected are protecting us from the elected.

    which is why Cummings hates them

    we are dealing with change for improvement, not annihilation

    If it ain't broke then leave it alone

    But it is broke. As is this country. So it can't be left alone


    Hopefully what we will eventually have here is a modern-day re-enactment of how the homo sapiens eventually eclipsed the existence of the Neanderthals. It was an awfully slow process. But the world has now speeded up. Hopefully one can see signs of the re-enactment even in this small forum. For insta nce, how many people are there in this forum with the kind of Neanerthal brain that thinks along the lines shown in the example under the heading "The Problem"? Humankind needs this kind of under-developed lifeform on every forum - and in every neighbourhood - just to remind us, the increasing majority, how important it is not to sink back into A New of Disenlightenment.

    1 Why?

    2 You spoiled an excellent post by adding this

    Answer to 1: Because

    Answer to 2: Why?

    Alternative answer to 2: I don't give a Flying F-ck what you think

    Answer to anyone else reading this reply, I offer touch of verbal diarrhea beyond the ken of my constipated replyer above): my last sentence was a mixture of flipness, irony, exasperation and hostility based on how immigrant or ethnic ghetto-ism expands into a whole town (perpetuating the skin colour/race/ethnic stand-off) coupled with the observation that, within these ghettoes, there is a way-above average ignorance or disregard for complying with the advice of Government and medical science to exercise common-sense precautions to reduce the likelihood of catching Cov 19 or, far worse, transmitting it to some innocent passer-by. Lock down is the obvious easy solution. The combination of compulsory Cov19 testing followed by a lengthy mass quarantine would be an alternative, where these aliens can convert their ignorance or disregard into a controlled test of herd immunity.

    LOL, We just had thousands of idiots, mainly aged between 20 and thirty, mainly socialist liberals, protesting shoulder to shoulder in major towns and cities around the country, and your worried Cummings, who incidentally was in the bubble of his motor vehicle. So, are you proposing the police only arrest Labour MP's and leave Tories alone. Please answer that carefully, your in real risk of making a complete plonker of yourself

    re protesters shoulder to shoulder: let's also add to our national petri dish Bournemouth's answer to St Tropez and just about any crowd where age & IQ are correlated. = the estimated age and IQ are practically the same number enough e with St Tropez oiBourbeach

    re your last sentence: you're way too late. Think positive: every forum should have its very own home-grown Darioush. But just as a monkey can in the fullness of time accidentally type a Shakespeare sonnet, a complete plonker might well be right in judging that the Government has decided it hasn't the resources for law enforcement without sparking off uncontrollable civic uprising and riots and, just maybe, the Government could be right. Every situation that requires making a tough decision about Cov 19 seems to be a viewed by this Government either as a tinderbox for civil war or a threat to losing the next General Election or at odds with the naive belief that libertarianism and a faith in the nation's sense of social responsibility will win the day. I have this fantasy or grave suspicion (sic) that the top echelons of the Government (Johnson and Cummings and a small handful of cabinet cyphers, in secret talks in a soundproof basement) have decided that, irrespective of the unknown speed and effectivess of the pursuits of the drug industry, the risk of another 50,000-200,000 cov 19 deaths would be a price worth paying for a return to normality. If that means places like Leicester becomes a ghost town, well, every cloud has a silver lining.

    I don't understand why there is all this hatred of Mr Cummings. He is merely one of the advisers to government. I suspect it's a political "character assassination" attempt by the ultra lefties because the advice that Mr Cummings is giving parliament is totally at odds with their own Ultra Lefty dogma. Mr Cummings has not broken any law in the statute book.

    There is disturbingly large proportion of voters in this country who don't like bright smart people. The general election generates a form of political inbreeding, where voters are unconsciously voting for people like themselves and, wow, do they get them! That's of course a sweeping generalisation but let me put it this way: the chance of getting a few strains of meritocracy are very slim. Then along comes Boris, raised to well-above average victory, thanks to the brain dead living corpse of Corbyn and his Neanderthal supporers from pre-Blair Labour patry and the suicidal incompetence of the Lib-Dems . Boris then has the chutzpa to escape from this inbreeding by bringing in an outsider to think the unthinkable (ie to think about what should be done for this country and it's governing). I'm not sure what is the exact opposite of an elite but it is certainly horribly self-evident in what they write or say and there at least one example in this forum. What happens when someone arrives in government as an influential adviser and is the opposite of the mediocrity that the anti-elitists voted for, all that's left is blind malignant character assassination.

    I don't know or care whether Lord Scarman's positive discrimination is still allowed or not in this country. I only know that it has grown over the years at a faster rate than Japanese Knot Weed and it diminishes the right to make choices based on merit rather than actual or imagined handicaps. Such biased or misplaced choices spring from ideology, political dogma or a misplaced sense of equality. The end result is counter productive because it highlights inequality rather than working towards eradicating it.

    Interesting. I believe if people do what they are asked we can get through this without a second peak, unfortunately they aren't and I'm not sure they will.

    When did the regulation of society depend on people doing what they are asked rather than what they're told to do, where non-compliance leads to a heavy fine, quite possibly a criminal record and even imprisonment?

    For example, when was it decided that it would be best to stop at just asking people to try and refrain from ......

    a) driving down a busy shopping street at 80mph?

    b) driving home after a lengthy pub drinking session with friends?

    c) letting themselves be within 2m of strangers in a pandemic while not knowing if they are a carrier of that contagious disease

    The answer to (c) is should a minimum a 2 week quarantine, to be imposed immediately on the spot and, in the case of resistance, quarantine willbe in a prison.

    The problem we have here is an unncessary number of deaths as a result of a society virus called "Permissiveness" and a government virus called "Whatever You Do, Don't Lose Votes".

    A plague on them both.

    Did it ever occur to your arrogance that people have different views to yours, and can't be bothered wading through your endless outbursts of verbal diarrhoea

    If you don't like what I say then you know what you can do but that doesn't suit your vitriolic agenda, does it

    Thanks for confirming my view. Don't change. You fill an important gap.

    I accept you have different views to mine. I was silly to think you would try to defend your view rather than try to misrepresent mine

    I promise not to argue with you again. Certainly not after your searing and original reply which has put me in my proper place.

    Have you any idea how much private health insurance costa, especially for those of a certain age - the majority of NHS users. Nobody could afford the premiums by the way, I know because I checked when considering a move to the EU

    I agree you could get a more immediate service but you would need to start paying the premiums either from birth or when staring work. For the majority it is too late and impossible which is why "saving the NHS" has such appeal

    Please read my point (3) again, particularly the bit in brackets, then try replying again.

    Actually, don't bother. In an earlier comment I gave a much fuller rationale for government privatising of the NHS, to which you replied in the usual deadheaded mind's-made-up way. I've tried to avoid noticing, but you don't debate anything. Whatever the topic, you have a one-track view and nothing anyone says and, no matter with what accompanying logic or cast-iron proof, there isn't the faintest chance of you deviating from a pre-existing unshakeable viewpoint. The nearest you get to conceding a point is to cease replying. Even current neural network computer "brains" which are used for predicting or estimating have been programmed to take on board additional inputted information and revise it's previous estimate or prediction accordingly. There must have been a time when you were accumulating knowledge and updating it in the light of new knowledge, so I'm wondering, when you stop doing that? Or don't you even know that has happened?

    Sorry to be a bit personal. Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude. It's just that you have some clear opinions and, in a forum, it's a sad, exaaperating and depressing waste of time if your views on just about anything and everything, is thesedays carved onto a tablet of stone.

    We don't want a health system where the first thing medics ask is for your credit card

    You've seen too many hackneyed movies. I am sure you're not nearly as dumb or pig ignorant as you pretend to be. What do you gain from pretending to be that way? And, by the way, in your reply, who is "we"? Your family? Forum Box members? British citizens? Readers of red top tabloids?

    1) It's usually the receptionist. 2) if it's an emergency they'll try and save your life first. 3) if you have med insurance (which could be paid for by the government with the money they are no longer pi55ing away on the NHS) you just show your med ins card which has your membership number and med ins phone number (and probably you also have a claims number if your visit is not A&E).

    I think that's a whole lot better than lying & dying on an A&E stretcher trolley in a draughty corridor or waiting in reception for at least an hour because appointments mean sod all to the NHS and the receptionist thinks its heroic staff are doing you a favour and therefore, if you don't like it, lump it.

    I've not said anything about what the Tories have done is OK. I'm not OK with any of them and I'm sure I can find reasons to have the Tories hung also. I have a personal issue with Blair because that was the last time I ever voted and lost what little trust in the whole system I had left. Plus war crimes should be dealt with as we did Hitler, Milosevic, Saddam and others otherwise we just a bunch of hypocrite's and no better than them and the creators of war and not peace.

    I wish I knew how you define a war crime? Did Blair commit a war crime? Is that because his secret service dossier was dodgy? Because he deceived Parliament? Because he didn't get UN approval? There was a lot of that going around, including Clinton's initiative in Bosnia and Croatia, ignoring the UN. And Kennedy took the US into Vietnam by describing his first wave of military personell going into Vietnam as "observers" and, surprise surprise, it escalated from that point onwards. I suppose one way to define a war crime is when it exacerbates rather than solves a problem of global disorder. I don't think it's enough of a war crime to mislead Parliament (you can't reason or decide anything important with potificating clowns) or browbeat the secret service (who put preservation of their pensions above truth and integrity) or ignore the UN (a toothless organisation with a voting set up that paralyses decisions that have any moral imperative) or because you have a "personal issue" with Tony Blair (did he stand you up when you had a date with him?!).

    No-one outside Pakistan is being accused of racism or anti-Muslim whether writing or talking about the fact* that some of Pakistan's airlines have been discovered to be flown by pilots who haven't qualified, who either faked their flying licence or persuaded another qualified pilot to take the test using the faker's name. That kind of corruption is almost bound to be in cahoots with the airline ground staff/management, who will have been motivated or bribed to turn a blind eye.

    If instead that news story was found to be true of Israel's national airline El Al, would the author be accused of antisemitism?

    Israel’s military and secret service forces are known to use a physical self-defence method called Krav Maga, which is intended and employed to be deadlier than other martial arts. Other countries are known to obtain training in this martial art and almost certainly this would include some police forces in the US. If this fact was discovered and written about as emanating from Israel, would it be justifiable to tar with an antisemitic brush the author, publisher or anyone associating themselves with or referring to this news item? So far, the best repudiation of this accusation has been that it is “inaccurate”, which is tantamount to conceding that in substance it is true.

    The problem is that that there no other country but Israel which indelibly and exclusively defines itself by its religion (other than the theoretical "nation", the Vatican). This means that if one criticises any other specific country, even one which is overridingly populated by a particular religious identity - be it Catholic, Jewish, Muslim - no one would contend that criticism of that country equals criticism of that religion, unless that country positioned itself in the world as the exclusive home of that religion, both historically and to this current day. Israel has chosen to burden itself in this way, although it must be said that after a horrifically long history of antisemitic persecution and near annihilation, a specific national homeland for Jews became seen as a racial/ethnic imperative for survival, even to the extent of including jews living elsewhere who may obtain the comfort or safety net from knowing that Israel is their mothership.

    In the light of the above I would argue that, in the final analysis, a diagnosis of a suspected person's antisemitism, unless displayed overtly, is almost impossible to establish without uncovering that susected person’s inner thoughts, feelings and motivations.

    So we end up with Keir Starmer sacking Rebecca Long Bailey for failing to steer a wide berth around this hot potato. In doing that Starmer is exercising a Machiavellian misinterpretation of what might well be her true position. This isn’t about Starmer’s virtue-signalling but rather his political self-aggrandisement. In a politically-correct world of religious and political pressure groups, where perception eclipses reality, this farce is par for the course.


    Because Israel is predominantly Jewish Starmer has considered her actions antisemitic. So, if the accusation was that the police were trained by Gurkha's, does that mean RLB would have been accused of having an issue with Buddhists. It won't take you long to up with several other scenarios.

    I think you are thinking along similar lines to me. But I'm not sure you have given the right example. Because (1) Gurkas are not Buddhists, (2) Budddhists don't have a specific country of their own, therefore (3) one can't denigrate any specific country and thereby automatically be accused of being anti-Buddhist. I suppose if you denigrate Burma you are denigrating Buddhists but it's hardly a useful parallel with antisemitism. I mean Buddhists don't buy wholesale, don't shrug, don't regard chicken soup as being as useful as penicillin and you might even let your daughter marry one

    But Boris is doing a very good job of impersonating David Owen at the moment, so well see on that one. I feel we're in store (pardon the pun) for more SDP stuff to come, so perhaps it won't be survival of the fittest after all.

    It's rare that I don't know get your drift. Am I missing something that's been in the news? Boris imitating David Owen? Do you mean in really leaving the EU and thus being faithful to the referendum? I recall Owen saying something about that late last year, denigraating all the two-faced MP's who only pretended to respect the referendum while trying to sabotage it and who were in effect killing democracy. What is the SDP stuff that you think we're "in store" (!) for?

    Just as Cov 19 can be an especially dangerous enemy of any person with a poor physical immunity system, so the actions taken to survive (lockdown, social distance but with peristing anxirties about the future) becomes a dangerous enemy to a business with a poor financial immunity system, typically high volume, low margin, or a sales future that is increasingly against the tide or a manaageement incompete nce that could only mess along during the good times .... if you thought Brexit was leading to commercial doomsday, you ain't seen nothing yet. This is all about economic Darwinism

    Just as long as Cov 19 has a threatening presence - which can include a second wave or, further along the line, mutation, where vaccines might only lessen rather than eliminate the threat, I see all kinds of commercial vulnerabilities based on physical or economic foreboding:

    Theatres, where adequate social distancing is hopeless and made worse by the majority of theatres lacking air conditioning.

    Cinemas, where social distancing will limit the audience size, which wil increase the admission price to try and be profitable, which will make in-home entertainment a more than adequate good value alternative (the hard-to-define interaction between audience and screen is minimal compared with theatre live stage theatre), all of which means a buoyant market for upgrading screen size, streaming, etc. Small audiences of 4-8 becomes a new kind of social entertainment compared with the traditional dinner or supper party, which in any case has been in steady decline.

    High street retailers offering the kind of products that can't compete with Amazon or other on-line retail suppliers are particularly likely to face a slow-but-sure death .... if they haven't already thrown in the towel.

    Shopping streets that intermingle with cafes, bars, restaurants, bookshops, market days, special street events etc may have a better time of it, offering the one experience on-line shopping can't compete with: stimulation (a primary need of all iiving creatures)

    Larger-than-life department stores and shopping arcades also provide stimulation but social distancing becomes a hazard and an uncrowded department store or arcade resembes a morgue, which certainly isn't stimulating!

    Those shopping high streets handicapped by the kind of local authority that penalises rather than tries to accommodate motorists (eg with shuttle buses from outside carparks to the town centre) are in particular dire straits

    US shopping malls come in so many shapes and sizes that it is difficult to generalise. An impressive supermarket is often the central attraction and the other smaller more individualistic outlets thrive within the supermarket's gravity pull. In the age of the car, US shopping malls can't be ignored. Social distancing within these spacious malls is an obvious attraction. So far, British versions of US shopping malls don't seem to have got to grips with the formula needed.

    There are of course lots of winners.

    Gigaclear's fast optic fibre internet is doing well as people look more intensively for their kicks indoors.

    Holiday rentals in self catering villa/apartments is less restricting than hotels.

    Holidaying in one's own country rather than flying abroad is a no-brainer (except for the crowds thinking the same thing!).

    Equity release once elderly homeowners decide to stay put rather than downsize.

    Certain pharmaceutical companies are coining it.

    Private medicine and hence medical insurance, now that self-styled NHS heroes are beyond criticism and can carry on being their usual selves.

    More Dignitas-type centres.

    Goods deliverers and couriers.

    A higher quality or more innovative level of meal take-aways.

    A new restaurant chain than is designed within the limitations of social distance to be effective, proficient and an enjoyable eating-out experience and hence succesful and profitable.

    Golf and tennis clubs, where social distancing is easier

    .... and so on and so forth

    Not true, the only reason we need them is because the country is full of other immigrants

    Two plusses if essential services collapse:

    1) They would become (semi-)privatised. The government/taxpayer would still pick up the tab but the additional cost of privatisation and hence profit is bound to work out cheaper than union greed, over-staffing and working to rule to make a little work go a long way. Besides, the government is bound to have a slice of the profits which will come from the well-off classes (and corporate employer-to-employee benefits) who will choose to pay for an upgraded service in the trimmings/comfort (but where of course the essence of healthcare remains a constant regardless of the trimmings. Even something as mundane as garbage disposal has its extra cost trimmings, eg garden waste. As for fuel utilities such as water, that's a nice little earner for the government who is crying out for an equal playing field. Then there's public transport - a vast amount is aready privatised and part financed by the government, which gives the government the leverage of penalty or contract cancellation to prevent mismanagement that could undermine the service.

    2) For those citizens unemployed - or in dire financial straits and eligible for benefits/financial assistance - a more commercialy-minded government, in partnership with private enterprise, will be better able to decide when and when not to grant elibility to the have-nots and, assuredly, this will affect the decision of future prospective immigrants, most especially among ilegal immigrants.