Jack the Sipper

Can't believe no-one's mentioned this masterpiece. Also, breaking into the palace with a sponge and a rusty spanner...

Apologies, I read that first part wrong. I thought you were talking about cheering the opposing teams players. I'll come back to it later.

He can answer for himself, but it read to me like he was talking about religious people, not races of people.

What? So using your analogy, Ukraine are the opposing side to Palestine? Regards the first point, that's not what I'm referring to. I've said what I've seen people saying, and it's not just about others supporting Ukraine but having a pop at those who support Palestine.

So I've heard. But I was referring to that specific post. There's also a poster @Planet Origi who has repeatedly been racist towards Jews on this thread, yet still posts on here, and doesn't get anything like the same condemnation for those comments.

I've seen a few people on social media, and on here, arguing that, if you support Ukraine in their war against Russia, then you'd be a hypocrite, or worse, if you don't equally support the Palestinians in their war against Israel. While I don't think the two are directly comparable, to those who do make that argument, surely the reverse must also be true - that if, for example, you're spamming threads every day on here to show support for the Palestinians, then we can expect to see you expressing your support for the Ukrainians with equal fervour on the relevant thread here.

The implication in that meme being that the blue stripes represent the river and the sea, and not the blue lines on a tallit shawl... I thought he was talking about religious people. I wouldn't go so far as to want rid of them, but I'd be all for them dying out and not being replaced by more of them. I think Lennon probably said something similar.

Jan 25 at the latest, but a general belief it will be between next Spring and Autumn. The governing party get to choose the date, so it will be when they think it's most advantageous to them. There is a desire to change from FFP, but as the two main parties benefit from it, calls get nowhere. We did have a referendum on changing our voting system abut a decade ago, which failed. I think there needs to be a long and considered debate (no laughing at the back) about what system we want and to be aware what the pros and cons of them are. None are perfect. The left are generally of the view that PR is better because it gives more weight to smaller (left-wing) parties that get crowded out in FPP. True, but the same would happen on the right. In 2017, with 2 million votes across the country, the Greens would have had more MPs than the one MP they ended up with under FFP. Ukip got 4 million votes at the same election, and won one seat. Tony Benn, also raised the point about losing elected representation under PR, and having MPs imposed from a list.

They came from Labour, the Tories, other right-wing parties, pundits and celebs, and from foriegn sources. And can you guess why he's under nowhere near the scrutiny Corbyn was, this man who's trying to get elected? Because he's learnt from Corbyn's mistakes, naivety, or stubbornness perhaps?

Only if they're tactical votes. Otherwise you could easily end up in a situation where Labour loses seats it might otherwise win to the Tories to green votes, the Tories win the election and talk about how it was actually how people are tired of green policies that won them the election, then talk about 'protecting the motorists', and change their policies to suit. Something pretty much exactly like what happened this year when they won Uxbridge. Agreed. And I can see why, given the sheer torrent of accusations and smears that came Corbyn's way. If I were trying to win an election, I'd be mindful of how the guy before me did and learn from that. If seems others think 'vote with your heart, say what you feel', is enough.

He was being called a kid-starving, nonce-protecting Nazi by the same crowd a few months back. This is progress.

Hard to believe now, but Portillo was seen as hard-right, the heir to Thatcher, a real cold shameless cunt, and he played on it too. Now he's trundling around the country on steam trains in pink suits talking to old folk about where to get the best scones in the Mendips. Jonathan Aitken was another one. I can only imagine what fate has lined up for Braverman.

He's actually got a few positions he argues for (whether he believes in them or not is besides the point) that are like a red rag to the brutes that watch that shite, namely net zero and HS2. Apparently, the Mail, who he currently does a column for, are pissed of with him for banging on about them. There's also the issue of the forthcoming election, which might make things interesting. Even though GBNews are to the right of most Tories (which takes some doing these days) they'll almost certainly be campaigning for them in whatever ways they can. Will Johnson, who still feels sore about the way he was removed and Sunak in particular, toe the line?

No I'm not, not by a long shot. I only respond to things that others, generally his supporters, put up, and in return I get them telling me to shut up, move on, calling me weird, or posting passive aggressive shite instead of actually, you know, engaging with the topic.

And that is what I have been doing. There's no posts from me calling him a terrorist sympathiser, or condoning the Israeli response. I've just taken issue with that aspect of his 'solution' to the conflict, which I think is both unrealistic and ignores what the Palestinians themselves might accept for peace. I think he's misguided not malign. You would hardly believe I supported Corbyn as leader and still respect him now to listen to some of the responses from some of his followers on here whenever I have criticised him. No dissent allowed at all it seems.

Of course they are, and they get plenty of it on here, including from me. If the obvious needs the stating, I think the world would be a better place if the Israeli government (who I condemned in this thread the moment it was formed last year) were out of power, and that Naftali Bennett cunt makes me puke every time I see him on the TV. I believe in a ceasefire and think the western leaders have got this wrong and will end up on the wrong side of history. But plenty of people already say this on here, and I'm really not interested in echo chambers. I criticise Corbyn because he says things that are also worthy of criticism that don't get flagged on here, namely his repeated 'only path to peace...' stance that I've already discussed with you. Controversial view maybe, but if publicly school educated, privileged elderly white men in the west kept their 'we know what's best for you' noses out of the Middle East 70, 80, 100 years ago then they and we wouldn't be in this almighty fucking mess right now. Just a thought.

He's quit with the 'only path to a just & lasting peace' bullshit at last. Perhaps he's on here taking notes. I can only imagine what Mr kinder and gentler would make of the behaviour of some of his supporters.

Moral clarity and humanity... a man who just last year defended a fellow Tory MP who'd just been convicted of noncing a 15 year old boy.

I'm sure they do, as would I, although I'm also sure that different Palestinians would have different ideas about what justice entails, and what priority they would give to it right now. Like you and Corbyn, I'm no spokesman for them and can't pretend to know what they all want, but I do know that the road to justice and the complete rolling back of the decades-long occupation is met with a big fucking obstacle called Israel and its numerous allies in the west (and increasingly in the Arab world - see how Saudi Arabia have developed relations in recent years. Some have argued it's this normalising of relations in the Arab world with Israel that led to the Hamas attacks). That's not how I would like it, but that's the stone-cold fact. All I'm saying, which some here seem to take objection to, is to inject a bit of reality into the situation and look at the possibility of a compromise that works for both sides, that Palestinians can be happy with, instead of us proclaiming from our armchairs thousands of miles away how peace there is only possible if... Let them fucking decide on what terms peace is possible. If they're content with less than what Corbyn wants so be it. And, yeah, I do realise they have no effective representation right now, but that's another headache to deal with.

You're the thin-skinned cultist that keeps telling me to 'move on' whenever I mention Him, and you call me upset? Still, thanks for the cream. Here's a photo to help you generate some of your own.

I'll say what I want on here, not that it's nearly as offensive as the bollocks you regularly post, and no shitty fucking clique is going to bully me into silence.

Sorry Arnie, but where in that text, or any other text on the subject, does it talk about the British leaving NI as part of the GFA? They've reduced their influence and numbers, for sure, that was part of the agreement, but they're still there, they still have a secretary of state for NI, there are still NI politicians sitting at Westminster, they can still exercise power from Westminster if Stormont is suspended (as often happens, and I think is the case right now). From my understanding, there is no timetable for the UK to withdraw completely. It's completely dependent on separate votes for direct Irish rule in both NI and Ireland, which may or may not ever happen.

No. Where did you hear that, and what time frame did you hear?

From yesterday's tweet: "For the only path to a just & lasting peace: an end to the occupation of Palestine." From his frst tweet since the current events started: "ending the occupation is the only means of achieving a just and lasting peace." Granted, he doesn't state back to 1967, but he also doesn't qualify his remarks with anything else, just a repeated reference to 'an end to occupation'. I think I'm entitled to assume he's talking about an end to the Israeli occupation full stop, not some occupation in certain areas, or even a settlement, neither of which he refers to. What makes you think he's not talking about a total withdrawal, given what he's said? At the very least, he needs to be more explicit if he's not talking abut that. And, as I asked Arniepie, do you think a total withdrawal by the Israelis (if that's what Corbyn or anyone else is demanding for peace) is at all likely? An agreed settlement could be a million different things in practice, but in essence it will mean compromise on both sides, and something that both sides can live with, with peace and some or, ideally for me, total Palestinian independence at its core. It's really not for me to say what the Palestinians should be accepting, just as it shouldn't be for Corbyn either.

I rarely post about him, and when I do it's in response to what someone else has posted about him. he's really not in my thoughts much these days. Try it.