c4countdown

this is absolutely fucking disgraceful.

Presented without comment: the currently-trending words in the dictionary.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:50 pm this is absolutely fucking disgraceful.

He is probably saying it from a safety standpoint rather than a homophobic standpoint.
The Qataris don't fuck about when it comes to punishment

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:50 pm

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:50 pm this is absolutely fucking disgraceful.

He is probably saying it from a safety standpoint rather than a homophobic standpoint.
The Qataris don't fuck about when it comes to punishment

Yeah, I was debating with myself how bad it was, which was why I didn't reply earlier because normally I'd be all over any Cleverly chat.

But I do perhaps think he's treating people like they're stupid. Did it need to be said?

Well the problem here is the choice to host it in Qatar.

The Qatar regime - based on some idea of a religious being that seems to me to be a less benevolent adult Father Christmas - have determined that homosexuality is a sin (tbf, was a matter of a few decades ago, it was illegal on our shores). We've moved on. They haven't.

But yep - if you're going to Qatar, you don't wanna mess with it. It's more about fear than "respect".

Yeah to be clear, the first disgrace here (relevant to the Foreign Secretary's comments) is Qatar and its contemptible ethics, including its horrible homophobia.

The second disgrace is FIFA's appalling decision to host a World Cup there. Not just because of their homophobia. The fact that Qatar is not a footballing country and is far too hot to play football in should be enough to discount it from hosting a World Cup. Combine those two things with their work laws that are widely considered to be in breach of human rights and you end up with the terrible (but entirely foreseeable) outcome of 7 brand new football stadia being built for the tournament by effectively indentured servant migrant workers in blistering heat. There is dispute over how many of them died in the process. The International Trade Union Confederation estimates the total at between 6500 and 7000. The majority of the tournament will be played in these 7 stadia. So for most games in this tournament, the very venue the players are playing in will be on average responsible for the deaths of 1000 migrant workers who didn't have a way out of their work.

The third disgrace is Cleverley's framing of the danger that many football fans will face in Qatar. Yes, they will be in danger and in his job he probably has to warn them of that. Yes, given the diplomatic nature of his job he probably can't be too openly critical of Qatar. But the framing is still awful.

So yeah, the main takeaway from this is how awful Qatar is and how much of a disgrace this World Cup is. But Cleverley's comments are still very poor.

Any in depth discussion of the shitshow in Qatar that they're calling a World Cup probably should be in a different thread, or its own one, as it's more a moral issue then a political one. But guys, please please please don't watch the World Cup this year. FIFA have forced it ahead despite all the ethical reasons not to, basically entirely because of money. We (football fans) can vote with our wallets, our TV remotes, and our online clicks to send a message to them that we don't approve. If enough of us do so, they might get the message that holding a World Cup in such an impractical and unethical state isn't as profitable as they had hoped, and might not consider hosting one in such a place again. That decision could save the lives of thousands of migrant workers, and ensure gay fans can attend football tournaments just like everyone else, without fear of being arrested - and possibly worse - for their nature.

It might sound like a cop out but I try not to bring politics in sport so I will be watching
I didnt boycott the Moscow Olympics in 1980 and I shall be watching the world cup.

You get F1 races in dodgy countries, including Qatar, as well.

True Gavin, although they're not going there this season.

Worth noting that the stadium build push that killed thousands of workers is a specific reason not to follow this World Cup that might not apply to other events such as the Qatar GP (so far as I understand that took place last year at the Losail circuit that had been there for years as a motorbike racing track).

Suella’s not a great home sec, but she is right about one thing: there are too many people seemingly uninterested in the channel crossings, pretending it’s not happening because they refuse to believe that it’s illegal or should be stopped.

No one needs to flee from France illegally to come here. They do that because they know we’re too soft a touch at present.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 2:11 pm Suella’s not a great home sec, but she is right about one thing: there are too many people seemingly uninterested in the channel crossings, pretending it’s not happening because they refuse to believe that it’s illegal or should be stopped.

No one needs to flee from France illegally to come here. They do that because they know we’re too soft a touch at present.

I think people are interested in the channel crossings - it's just that people have different ideas on why they happen and who's to blame. I think pretty much everyone agrees that they're a bad thing in principle. There should be no need to make these dangerous crossings from one supposedly safe country to another. And yet people do make these crossings, for whatever reason.

I think the main problem is lack of co-operation and a co-ordinated approach between countries. Some people would say that people should only be able to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. But this would clearly mean that a small number of countries would get the bulk of asylum seekers, purely based on where they are situated in the world. And I don't think it's right to wash your hands of the problem just because you are further away from the places where asylum seekers come from than other countries.

I've said this before, but I think the best solution is for all "safe" countries to have a single set of rules, administered by an independent body. Basically you reach a safe country and make a claim to asylum, saying which country you want to go to and why. Which country you happen to arrive at first would not matter. The independent body places aslyum seekers in a country based on the needs of the asylum seeker and availability in the country. Some asylum seekers would have a higher priority to be allowed in their country of choice than others (e.g. if they already have family there).

It seems pretty obvious to me, but people prefer to play the blame game than co-operate.

I think France should be where all asylum seekers are processed and depending on quotas would go to an allotted EU country.
Seems fair, and would be fairer if we was still in the EU

A former civil servant has done a big interview with Guido to pour cold water on the Raab witch-hunt.

https://order-order.com/2022/11/17/the- ... standards/

The do-nothing Mayor has ignored the wishes of Londoners. 2 in 3 opposed ULEZ expansion in the “genuine consultation” and furthermore some opposition responses were improperly excluded. This is a scandal and Khan should resign.

I might as well bring up the Susan Hussey "Where do you really come from?" thing. What do you reckon?

Here is the full conversation, as recounted by Ms Fulani:

Lady SH: Where are you from?

Me: Sistah Space.

SH: No, where do you come from?

Me: We're based in Hackney.

SH: No, what part of Africa are you from?

Me: I don't know, they didn't leave any records.

SH: Well, you must know where you're from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?

Me: Here, the UK.

SH: No, but what nationality are you?

Me: I am born here and am British.

SH: No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?

Me: 'My people', lady, what is this?

SH: Oh I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you're from. When did you first come here?

Me: Lady! I am a British national, my parents came here in the 50s when...

SH: Oh, I knew we'd get there in the end, you're Caribbean!

Me: No lady, I am of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality.

SH: Oh so you're from...

The transcript reads horribly, although I presume it's from memory so could be made to look worse (or even better) than it really was. Susan Hussey comes out of this badly, but I also think it's not productive to to have such a binary view of something either being racist or not racist. I don't think it really adds much. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to wonder where someone's ancestors are from, although it's probably not the first thing you'd ask someone and you wouldn't ask in this way. So I think that the conversation (if it was as the transcript) was completely unreasonable, and I think that's enough.

Years ago, when I used to work for a double glazing company part time, a woman I worked with asked me about my nationality. She got out of me that my dad was born in India and then said something like "So first and foremost you are Asian." And I said no because my mum is white and British anyway (so I would be at most 50% Asian) and I was born in the UK and had never been to Asia. It was an annoying conversation, but I didn't think that she was racist. And if it changes anything, she was from Nigeria. And that does show that this kind of questioning doesn't necessarily come from a position of "I'm white - who are you?" Her line of questioning wasn't as aggressive as Hussey's apparently was, but curiosity about someone's ancestry alone doesn't make for a racist, and neither does aggressive questioning alone, but the two combined do?

If she had asked her what her ancestry was then it wouldn't have merited any censure.
I would say that the language fits unconscious bias and clumsy but not overtly racist in tone.
If i had read the transcript with no prior knowledge I would have guessed that she was probably at least 80 as its the sort of thing my mum may have said in her 80s or 90s

It's more the repeated questioning and implied disbelief that's so egregious: 'no, where are you really from?' after being told Britain several times is just awful. It beggars belief that someone in such a high profile role that likely involved speaking diplomatically with people from all sorts of different backgrounds hadn't been trained out of an inclination to say such ridiculously ignorant things. The above transcript absolutely reads as abuse.

My response would have been “WHEN are you really from?!” (you crazy old bat)

In light of Sunak's new Maths policy, this Sky News presenter, in an effort of accidental self-depreciation, admits she's not as smart as a 10-year-old. https://twitter.com/annabotting/status/ ... DkdHmrOKhw

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 5:38 am In light of Sunak's new Maths policy, this Sky News presenter, in an effort of accidental self-depreciation, admits she's not as smart as a 10-year-old. https://twitter.com/annabotting/status/ ... DkdHmrOKhw

The last thing we need is 16 - 18 year old being forced to continue schooling

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 5:38 am self-depreciation

Maybe we should be teaching English a bit longer as well.

Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:07 am My response would have been “WHEN are you really from?!” (you crazy old bat)

So, racism (even when it's not really racism) = bad.
But, ageism = good.

It is hard to keep up.

I am confused about British opinions on the BBC.
I'm not properly interested, as there's only so much culture wars one-upmanship worth getting involved with in any one day, and the BBC seems generally fine / neutral to me.

But I have seen friends putting up complaining statuses on fb.
Some complain that it has "gone woke" and thusly deserves to "go broke".
Others say it has a massive right wing bias when it comes to political coverage.

Which is true?
Is it possible both are true (or neither)?!
Has anyone got an opinion on this.

It's hugely anti-Conservative, they have been falling over backwards over Jacinda Arden despite her polls tanking, Jon Sopel claiming leaving between elections is much better than leaving at a general election, etc... which I note wasn't the line they took on Boris going.

But also they had the ridiculous situation of one Conservative London Assembly member this morning trying to debate both a Labour MP and the Labour Deputy Mayor on ULEZ. That's almost complaint-worthy on bias, as is the way the London news gives Sadiq Khan almost double the airtime than Susan Hall.

This was the fb person's comment...

"Goebbells would be proud of UK state propaganda TV.
Laura Kuntzberg having a bunch of fascists on to make excuses for Tory chancer-lor avoid prison unlike Boris Becker.
A totally disgrace that we have to fund the BBC."

Perhaps he is a bit loopy?

I've generally felt that the BBC has an economic right wing bias but a social justice warrior bias on social issues.

Anyone remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjrEpFi3QOE&t=6m0s

Think that sums it up!

What someone thinks of the BBC is generally a good barometer for how nutty they are on either side of the political spectrum.

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:38 pm What someone thinks of the BBC is generally a good barometer for how nutty they are on either side of the political spectrum.

That may work in a limited manner but it is definitely oversimplistic.

Also, the BBC's reporting of this Boris Johnson "had a guarantor on a loan" is such a non-story compared to the Zahawi affair which is way more serious - it just shows they had an agenda against Boris, and still do.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:09 pm Also, the BBC's reporting of this Boris Johnson "had a guarantor on a loan" is such a non-story compared to the Zahawi affair which is way more serious - it just shows they had an agenda against Boris, and still do.

Well, the main story is Zahawi. But if Boris is getting a guarantor on a loan that then gets a high profile job, then that is a story.

The whole Tory setup does look horribly corrupt - contracts for mates, money for nothing.

I hated Thatcher, but I don't believe she was corrupt. This wide scale corruption is a relatively recent development, and one that really needs stamping out.

I'm currently drunk off my ass in lanzarote so should probably stay out of it but fuck me. This thread is hilarious. You have douchebag L'oisleatch who thinks the culture war is an actual thing to be worried about and Rhys, the gay Conservative who will be first in the fire if his fascist party actually got to implement thier ultimate agenda. Keep on trucking boys. All the world needs is for billionaires to pay their taxes so we can fund society. Just share the fucking wealth you assholes. Human beings are exceptional. Look at what we've achieved and people are worried about such inconsequential bullshit.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:38 pmthe gay Conservative who will be first in the fire if his fascist party actually got to implement thier ultimate agenda.

You have no idea about the party. It's a twink fest.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:10 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:38 pmthe gay Conservative who will be first in the fire if his fascist party actually got to implement thier ultimate agenda.

You have no idea about the party. It's a twink fest.

It may be but do you think you are a twink? Keep dreaming. As I said, you'll be first in the fire. And the fact you can't see it is depressing. The way people vote against their interest is the most frustrating part of politics. I'm a hard core leftist in terms of rhetoric on here but brass tax, I'm just about generating the best outcomes for the vast majority. As I said, humans are fucking amazing. We've gone to the fucking moon for Christ's sake. All the best stuff we have is when people come together to make sure everyone else is looked after. Conservatism is a "me first" ideology and when taken to it's logical conclusion becomes fascism.

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:40 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:10 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:38 pmthe gay Conservative who will be first in the fire if his fascist party actually got to implement thier ultimate agenda.

You have no idea about the party. It's a twink fest.

It may be but do you think you are a twink? Keep dreaming. As I said, you'll be first in the fire. And the fact you can't see it is depressing. The way people vote against their interest is the most frustrating part of politics. I'm a hard core leftist in terms of rhetoric on here but brass tax, I'm just about generating the best outcomes for the vast majority. As I said, humans are fucking amazing. We've gone to the fucking moon for Christ's sake. All the best stuff we have is when people come together to make sure everyone else is looked after. Conservatism is a "me first" ideology and when taken to it's logical conclusion becomes fascism.

I don't know if it's a, good thing or not but you make more sense when you are drunk

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:09 pm Also, the BBC's reporting of this Boris Johnson "had a guarantor on a loan" is such a non-story compared to the Zahawi affair which is way more serious - it just shows they had an agenda against Boris, and still do.

This wasn't a story in the first place, and now it's been proven untrue. Boris and Sharp didn't meet until 3 months after the loan; the story alleged it happened it before.

That didn't stop the media from running with it. The media has got it in for Boris Johnson, it's absolutely clear.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:38 pm I'm currently drunk off my ass in lanzarote so should probably stay out of it but fuck me.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:38 pmthe gay Conservative who will be first in the fire if his fascist party actually got to implement thier ultimate agenda.

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:40 am As I said, you'll be first in the fire.

Do you want to make a more sober rephrasing of this stuff? I know you're giving your opinion on the Conservatives rather than on Rhys, but it still looks like using someone's sexuality as something to attack them with. Language like "you'll be first in the fire" - even if it is only what you imagine a political party would do - doesn't help.

Not really. I'd equate it with the voting for the leopards who eat people's faces meme.

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:44 am Not really. I'd equate it with the voting for the leopards who eat people's faces meme.

Had to Google that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64413242
Maybe they should build a prison for trans felons

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:07 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64413242
Maybe they should build a prison for trans felons

They'd have to build two!!

Zahawi sacked.

Philip A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:14 am Zahawi sacked.

Yeah - but what from exactly?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64444530
Maybe they might build those prisons after all

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 5:46 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:13 pm

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 3:58 pm

As I understand it, oil prices, like all commodity prices, are determined by speculators and hedgers who are betting on price moves. OPEC can control the supply side of the supply/demand equation, but individual companies cannot. BP and Shell can't decide the spot price for oil anymore than Beaverbrooks can decide the spot price for gold.

Having said that, I do believe there is a case for a windfall tax on UK oil producing companies.

OK, thanks. I did wonder if it might be something like that. Still, the BBC article could have done a better job explaining it in the first place.

Thinking about this further, I'm not sure it would really work as a business model. If energy companies are just blindly buying and selling at the market rate, what happens if there is a fall in prices over any extended period of time? They just suck up the loss and sell to the public at the going rate?

People/companies attempt to make money buying and selling shares etc. by e.g. trying to buy when prices are down and selling when they're up. So they can hold without selling for as long as they want. But companies sellings goods to the public are in a completely different position. People need these goods at a relatively constant rate so the companies can't just hold without selling, and companies in general set the prices accordingly. Obviously they can't just make anything up because other companies can sell at a lower price, but the point is that Tesco selling a pizza is not restricted by some market speculator sitting up all night at a computer in New York. So I'm not sure that a company would for energy prices either.

Anyway, James May questioned this on Have I Got News For You on Friday (well, not in that detail), but no answer came. It's just one of many things that the news assume everyone understands when almost no-one does.

I don't think this whole thing was really ever satisfactorily answered.

Had this been a Tory the word “Conservative” would have been in the headline or in the first paragraph at the very least.

I dare you to tell me the BBC aren’t biased.

https://t.co/iKXdZC9gOb

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:42 pm Had this been a Tory the word “Conservative” would have been in the headline or in the first paragraph at the very least.

I dare you to tell me the BBC aren’t biased.

https://t.co/iKXdZC9gOb

Methinks you're suffering a bit with confirmation bias

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics - none of the current stories mention parties in their headlines

Having googled various grimy MP stories, some do and some don't - it doesn't seem to be party related e.g. -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63344752 - Labour MP Christian Matheson resigns over sexual misconduct

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60975624 - MP David Warburton admitted to hospital after sexual harassment claims


My conclusion is that MPs that have not been suspended from their parties generally get their parties mentioned, those that have do not.

Also in the news, Sandi Toksvig complaining about the Church of England's marriage policy. But there's always a risk of encountering this sort of thing if you put any credence in an arbitrary branch of an arbitrary religion. The best solution is to not acknowledge the church. It's only relevant because people make it relevant.

In other “shockingly underreported dreadful media shite”:

According to Sky, Zelensky received a standing ovation in Westminster Hall. Which he did, but this was probably down to the fact there were no chairs and the invite explicitly says standing room only. So well done Sky.

Both the BBC News at Ten and Newsnight failed to mention the fact he singled out Boris Johnson for praise.

And Sky also made the claim “the UK doesn’t have any fighter jets to send” just after the speech.

Paul Brand at ITN, whose ridiculous agenda against Boris is transparent, was also adamant Zelensky coming to the UK was a bad thing for Boris Johnson. No it’s not. Especially after he praised him specifically.

Starmer at PMQs made an interesting suggestion that Russia should be made to pay reparations for the war. Which would probably have made for a more interesting discussion on the BBC and Sky.

And whilst the earthquake in Turkey and Syria is absolutely devastating it does not require 90% of the 10pm bulletin on the same day, right?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:16 pm Also in the news, Sandi Toksvig complaining about the Church of England's marriage policy. But there's always a risk of encountering this sort of thing if you put any credence in an arbitrary branch of an arbitrary religion. The best solution is to not acknowledge the church. It's only relevant because people make it relevant.

Agreed, either take offensive or hypocritical language out of the Bible or get marriage in a progressive tolerant religion, which probably don't exist anyway.*

*Yes this is a ploy to get someone on here to present me with one

It does if there's Britain's involved.
Btw Rhys, are you part of Boris Johnson PR team.
Im not prepared to trawl through your posts (but maybe Gevin is ) but I have rarely if ever seen a post criticising the Clown Prince of bufoonery

Is it really news that he praised Boris Johnson? Something to mention as an aside maybe but no big deal.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:43 am Is it really news that he praised Boris Johnson? Something to mention as an aside maybe but no big deal.

Lol I thought yo was referring to me

The whole Nicola Bulley thing seems to be a case of missing white woman syndrome. I really don't see how it warrants this much coverage. It's bordering on the absurd (not bordering actually.)

That's as maybe, but it doesn't change how the scum media have acted.

https://twitter.com/NewsmanDan/status/1 ... 34914?s=20

We must not historically revise the original NI protocol. It was better than May’s backstop and thus was agreed to at a time when time was not on the country’s side.

May’s backstop provided no exit mechanism for Stormont and would have forced the UK into EU customs rules.

The Windsor Framework for the most part looks positive, but we won’t know until we see it in action. I remain concerned about the role of the ECJ and question how often the Stormont Brake will actually be used, but I think it’s good.

Are the chickens coming home to roost?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:31 pm Are the chickens coming home to roost?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

What story are you referring to?

I think it was about Boris Johnson misleading parliament. Meakin's poor linking skills!

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 1:05 pm I think it was about Boris Johnson misleading parliament. Meakin's poor linking skills!

Indeed and now I can't find the page, maybe he's been exonerated already.
Paging Rhys.......