One word. Creepy.:mad:
Printable View
One word. Creepy.:mad:
Former President of Jewish board of deputies calls for the killing of Jeremy Corbyn
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/201...be-sacrificed/
Speaking at the BoD meeting on 19 May, Lionel Kopelowitz said:
The word Corbyn is a very suitable one for him, after Corbyn in Hebrew is ‘korban’, which is a sacrifice. And I think we should sacrifice him for all the trouble that he has caused.
<strong>https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...;v=FuegEcB7QgI
Interesting article about the importance of vitamin D:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/nut...cid=spartanntp
Posted here rather than in Natural Remedies as it is vague and mentions conditions on here many may be afraid of such as MS. Obviously he is mentioning it but it doesn't detract from the probability of risk so take this more as an article promoting supplements, something doctors are quite "anti".
Omega 3's have definitely helped me with mood balance since being on anti depressants and Cod Liver Oil was an old one used by mum's for ages.
I watched vid to determine whether that headline was justified. His comments were indeed highly offensive and inflammatory in the way he used the word "sacrifice". He had to be warned a couple of times that his comments were being "live-streamed", by which time he had hobbled off the podium.
Interestingly, kurban in Arabic also means "sacrifice", but the connection with Corbyn is just a play on words in order to attack him :lac:
Low Vitamin D can make chronic pain worse apparently.
Reading the quotes were enough to know what he was implying. Sacrifice of ones enemy isn't quite the same as of your own :winks: I bet if Corbyn said this the BOD would be up in arms all over the media screeching about anti Semitism.
Given his careful wording though I'm sure a clever lawyer could convince the police this wasn't incitement.
Utterly reprehensible. Something the BOD should remember next time they are complaining of hatred to the Jewish community when they didn't deal with this senior figure.
Yes, I still use it, KK. In the past I have stopped taking it and found my mood sink a bit and restarting sorting that out. What I have also found is I can go without now and it doesn't affect me much so I guess it's just taking some time to get my vitamin D levels up to a better place? These are the two I have used:
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-G...ucts/257045449
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-G...ucts/255352647
It's hard to get unopposed EPA other than in specialist products and I'm cost conscious. Since these have helped me I haven't kept trying other types but there are ones with higher levels out there.
The capsules are really poor value for money though, liquid contains far higher levels of Omega-3.
Been away in USA for 2 weeks
This story is bonkers. Are we seeing an escaltion or are we again talking about extremists that the Jewish community cant control and extremists that the Labour party cant control.
Most friends I have who are still Labour party members are deffo not antisemitic. Im not a Labour party member these days myself.
Yesterday I think ( General Election Poll ) :-
BREX 26% LAB 22% CON 17% LIBDEM 16% GREEN 11% UKIP 4%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...atives-opinium
I know everyone knows Im completely anti Nigel Farage not anti Brexit voters but are we in danger of getting Farage as a PM, It would be an unmitigated disaster !!!
I take it you were visiting your son & family? Did you all have a nice time...and avoid political talk? :yesyes:
The BOD don't seem to be covering themselves in glory in dealing with this one, a former senior member. But it's a biased news source so I guess it depends what has happened since?
I don't really get this rabid fascination with Israel. Is it a metropolitan Labour thing? I would have thought more northern Labour members, and voters, would be a lot more interested in the basics that afford us a nice life. In a way it acts as a whipping stick for the Tories against Corbyn but also a smokescreen for Labour's incompetence in so many areas too.
Labour seem to be in the middle of the shift, the infiltrations and purges. I guess this is why this escalation is happening but it's being going on for some time with Corbyn's allies deselecting people and getting friendly faces into top positions. Was it the same when Kinnock purged them out before?
It's all a bit strange. The first GE poll post EP elections shows the Lib Dems in front with TBP behind. I need to look up the 2nd one to see what that said but now we have this 3rd one showing they have slipped right back down again. :shrug:
I wouldn't think TBP could win an election but who knows in these strange times if both main parties sit about over Brexit. If they get that out of the way TBP will have nothing to exist for and dwindle just as UKIP did. But if not we could be in for some coalitions perhaps between Tory+TBP and Labour+Lib Dem+Green+SNP? Neither main party is set to win a majority and we all know May's last campaign was awful and Corbyn still couldn't beat her.
I also suspect the plan to go full Remain to recapture the Lib Dem vote is dodgy. All those northern Labour heartlands and marginals will be looking for a new home and it may be Tory or TBP. The Tories have always been very unpopular up here, we lost our industries under them, but they have been winning back as Corbyn just isn't popular up here. However would shifting to TBP for a time, possibly under Labour sort themselves out, be a home for them? Hmm...
I get what you are saying however I really have strong sentiments vs. Boris as he doesnt strike me as a Statesman, Strategist, Interlectual though he is painted as one in the Spectator. He seems the most self serving of all the candidates regardless of Brexit stance.
Does it help with your vitiligo? Yours sounds quite widespread so you must have spent a fortune on sunblock, hats and anything to cover up from the sun over the years.
I take it you have to keep an eye on your vitamin K3 intake then to avoid calcification issues?
I remember another member who said her GP wouldn't even bother testing for low vitamin D levels as her assumed all his patients were deficient since they lived in Northern Canada. Even though we have sun it might not be strong enough from what I remember reading so supplementing can be important. For us it can lead to a low mood thing too so very much one in the anti mental health issues arsenal. I just wish research was more conclusive as studies are contradictory.
List of UK GE polls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio..._election#2019
Labour are consistently in front with the exception (in recent months) of one where the Lib Dems pushed ahead (just after the EP elections) and one where TBP pushed ahead. TBP are nipping at the heals of the other 2 parties in the lead in the most recent three polls. The Lib Dems have been pushed back down again into their consistent polling % which suggests "the surge" is a bit of a non entity (tactical voting last minute?). The Greens show a similar story. The Tories are actually way ahead of the Lib Dems in all but that one poll and they are supposed to be collapsing!
If you look at the media reports throughout these times don't you get the impression there are big changes yet when you look at the polls this way it's not as major as they like to portray? For instance, Labour are supposed to be imploding yet their GE polling is the best and most consistent!
The only party showing a more (in recent polls) consistent uptrend is TBP!
I can sympathise with the need to cover up, although not to the extent it affects you, as I have plenty of scaring. I have issues with skin picking which have become more problematic as blood pressure meds have been added as they bring a lot of itching (daily anti histamines are needed). And I have issues with body confidence too so cover up for that. You will see me walking in a coat pretty much no matter how hot it is unless I'm in a more isolated area. At work I would be sitting in a jacket all day long but at least I could wear a suit, and I always wore suits anyway.
Vitamin D is in that suck and see category. There are studies that show it can work therefore it's worth a try in my opinion.
I question the benefits when we lose the countryside. I'm lucky living in a city no one is that bothered about as our surrounding countryside is less at threat :winks: Although near where I live there was a plan for 240 houses to be built on a stretch of lovely land I've been walking past since I was a child and I was pleased to see the residents fight it off. More "executive housing" :lac:
A benefit of HS2 is said to be how it will bring jobs to more northern cities and shoppers because the commute will be an hour. I have problems with this. The wages are going to be substantially less than in London so I can't see anyone wanting to commute away from London...do people actually do that now to more southern regions? :shrug: I can see how those up north can use it to commute quicker into London and to shop but I just don't see it the other way around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterb...ection_results
The answer to the Lib Dems lies in their vote share over the years. Whilst they are making a slight comeback they have bombed in more recent elections to be almost extinct.
It looks like voter turnout is well down in Peterborough but they have swung between Labour and Tory over the years. Now they are Labour marginal with TBP nipping at their heals.
Poor Jezza, the Labour candidate even has a typical social media history that includes anti Semitism. :doh:All kind of hilarious given the reason for this by election being a criminal MP with a terrible attitude towards the law (and a solicitor no less!) and her constituents in taking their cash whilst banged up (all legal under Parliamentary rules, of course). At least Labour gave her the boot.
I live on the outskirts of a city. The countryside is a 5-10 minute cycle ride away in several directions for me :yesyes:
Nut my city isn't important so it's full of boarded up areas, some with a newer building near it with one of those "funded by the EU" signs plastered all over it whilst all around is the domain of rats & pigeons, so our surrounding countryside is less at threat. No one wants to come here! Even HS2 is going to pass through foot down firmly on the accelerator :biggrin:
I love the countryside and I really don't want to see it eroded further by more roads and housing estates. Remember the days of our youth when we could walk through so many more rural areas? Great memories. Much better than all the new brick shoeboxes or repetitive estate housing we see there now.
Yep, agree with you on HS2. It's another one great for the middle classes and the local economies won't be boosted by it. Even if they do it will be because areas increase in size and the likes of big supermarket chains and shopping villages start emerging. I would rather it kept for the wildlife.
I dont live in a dormitory village but I live in a village that has trebled in size in the last 40 years.
We used to live on the edges of farm land but now you have to go a long way to get to the outskirts of the village and then you can almost see the next village.
The nearest City is 20 miles away, thats Norwich, which to be fair is a lovely City, it has problems but less than most. The nearest Town, pop. 70000 is Yarmouth and thats 3 miles away, Yarmouth is dieing though whilst Norwich is thriving.
We live in a semi-rural area and we do need to defend the rurality that we still have, we want to try and stop further building on green field sites which this Government unlocked.
We ave brown field sites that need to be exploited first, in fact in our locality we have some housing that was 95% finished then the Developer went bust and its been left empty for the last 4 years unfinished.
The BBC takes a big dump on one society's vulnerable groups, the over 75's. The government makes them responsible and in a matter of 5 years they effectively scrap it to make more profit. The government should take it back then to protect people from money grubbing execs: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11...test-june-2020
Totally disagree with your reading of this story Terry, sorry.
The BBC has already had to deal with ZERO real term increases in funds for 7/8 years under the Tories.
The Tories have then stitched up the BBC by giving them the responsibility of free funding for over 75's, that should never be the responsibility of the BBC it should be a Government responsibility.
The BBC doesn't make huge profits, it commercially releases and sells overseas its ware which it ploughs back into Programming, thats why it has Oversight in the form currently of the BBC Trust.
I'm not seeing the BBC hasn't made missteps in recent years but as a public service broadcaster I still personally think it has a lot lot more positives than negatives. I would like it to step back from the repetitive nature of its daytime programming where it seems to make programmes on a template in a very narrow and not artistically rewarding band of output. Its tentpole work though in recent years has been fantastic, recently Years and Years, Killing Eve, Les Miserables, Gentleman Jack, all great stuff.
The right wing media were always going to spin this as a BBC failure. I think its an abject failure of Government and yes, they should provide the cash for it and not the Ł9billion Boris wants for his tax cuts for the 40% payers.
imho
Something often missed is how the BBC also get payed to maintain the network. Is this just from the government? Do people understand how radio teleswitching in the electricity market works? The distribution companies actually get charged by the BBC for maintaining that network as a daily signal has to be sent to keep teleswitching meters up to date. Yet all we hear is the BBC is funded by our licence and government funding.
When I saw the BBC pursuing the distribution companies further, over 5 years ago now, they were increasing the many millions which they explained kept all signalling equipment up to date but also planned improvement works. So I'm a little skeptical about this situation knowing millions are paid through this (and how many others) other route. Yes, the government pushed it onto them but I would rather the BBC push back than lazily push it out onto pensioners.
My parents are affected by this simply because they aren't eligible for pension credit because they won't qualify yet they are typical of pensioners balancing a budget to keep going.
Looking back at energy again many pensioners who can't claim a penny fall under fuel poverty. I would be fine with the BBC means testing but falling back on pension credit is lazy and hits a lot of less well of folk too.
I wonder if I could find the figures for the contracts with the BBC?
I realise those on "the other side" will spin it but I'm not interested in that and I'm looking at two people who will get hit with an extra bill.
I have an issue with this though. The licence fee should only be a mechanism to pay for the network itself. Anything beyond that is up to the channel to make money.
Does the licence fee cover it? Plus government funding? Plus all the other pay outs like the one I mentioned above.
On your last point, did you see Jeremy Hunt saying he would drop taxes to "supercharge" the economy? But would it bring in enough to cover what it needs to pay for now and more?
Corporations legally dodging tax is very unpopular with the public for obvious reasons. He wants to reduce it to the ROI level which the EU are taking action against (well, it's helps Macron divert attention away from his own woes and makes him look like EU president material :whistles:). The EU are not going to be happy with a race to the bottom in tax so we may face some backlash to that from Brussels, even if ROI will look at their feet.
On a slightly better note Leadsom proposes to take people out of the negotiation equation and secure their rights. As does Gove. That's at least something for the poor sods stuck in the middle of these idiots.
If there were Brexit counting the BBC in such a way would make you an imperialist longing for the old days of empire :winks:
For me, it's another set of channels. Good shows, bad shows. They stand out for wildlife and their new reporting is better than most. However, that doesn't mean they are an untouchable entity and should compete with the rest. Only the network itself is where tax should be applied. Does it?
What do the other broadcasters pay for the use of the network? Why is it a % of the vulnerable will be expected to pay this, a bunfight between government and the BBC, yet large greedy corporations may not? Have their network charges been increased to help cover the shortfall? If not, why not? They can pass the cost onto those who want to advertise on their channels. Wouldn't this "socialise" the costs more as the most it then hits the public is over a large % either through content change or increased pricing of their products?
Other privatised industries don't work so well as a comparison e.g. electricity where the network charges are paid for you out of what you pay for your bill. There are other industries where we pay for services we may not use such as rail which is supported via taxation whether you use it or not. Roads the same. BT charge you for network maintenance even if you don't use their service itself and you can opt not to have a line. This can be said for the BBC where you can opt not to have TV.
However I question this because I'm cynical of it. They only started paying in 2018 with full payment taking over in 2020. Along pops a survey and they pull it as much as they can get away with. If they cancelled it all they would be under more pressure due to crossing over into what can be seen as those in potential poverty. Also, their survey wouldn't support pulling it altogether as only 15% support scrapping all concessions. With 37% supporting reform they can try this. Interestingly 48% said they were in favour of continuation of the concessions. It feels like the BBC never planned on taking this on if they could avoid it. This doesn't absolve government failure but I'm more interested in the financial impacts to over 75's than I am whether the content suffers.
Hopefully this will be resolved through propping up of those who are not on Pension Credit, but I can see the government pointing the finger at the BBC whilst they do nothing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48583487
This then is a compromise; around a third of the cost will be borne by the BBC and two thirds passed on to 'wealthier' pensioners. The elderly are by far the biggest consumers of the BBC's output, the average age of BBC TV's audience is now over 62, the question is how far younger licence fee payers should subsidise these older viewers. As consumption of traditional TV by younger viewers continues to drop there could well be questions about why they are being expected to pay for a service that the heaviest users get for free.
Hang on, I thought the youthquake was for more left leaning? But when it comes to media it's more right wing?
My parents certainly aren't wealthy. Typical working class of their generation with kids, several jobs (2 part time in my mum's case) and they aren't eligible for Pension Credit so they get lumped into the same bracket as truly rich pensioners. That's a lurch from one end to the other and will hurt the working classes.
Will they start taking pensioners to court? That comes with public backlash.
AgeUK made some interesting points about how when you are old the TV might be your only companion. At a time when they are trying to combat loneliness in the elderly.
Nah, just that you are less likely to moan about not having programmes aimed at your demographic, or when they are removed, because you will just change channel. Less likely to go all faux outage on social media about it.
Yes, I've been reading comments on other forums about this and it does come back to division. The polling comes in at 52/48 amusingly and a lot of the usual supporters of slashing pensioners rights in favour of the youth (because pensioners are all well off :doh:) seems to froth out.
I see an amusing statistic that Gary Lineker's salary could fund 11k licences. Regardless of age slashing that one would be beneficial :yesyes:
Another take I noted was the entitlement that those paying for the services should be dictating where they were deployed. Another "at odds" view of many supposed left leaning people I've seen who don't realise they are displaying a more typical Tory trait they are always complaining about.
My parents are definitely not wealthy but they do not get pension credit.
I think the TV licence consession for OAP's is a good one, I just dont think our public service broadcaster should fund it.
Maybe I have rose tinted specs on but I think the UK culture is much the better for us having a public service broadcaster like the BBC.
Im not sure that the TV licence has to be good value for money, though I think compared with Sky, Virgin etc I think it demonstrably is. Maybe vs. Netflix / Amazon Prime it isn't.
This sort of consession is a socio-political minefield and the young do feel that they are struggling to have stuff that prior generations have had as well so its very complex to know what the right answers are.
It should be about the network, not the content. You need a licence to watch TV, not to watch the BBC. Anything over costs to maintain it should be coming from other revenue streams in my opinion. I'm not sure how much does and doesn't but since they have such a huge content level and all the costs that go with it I would be suspecting the licence fee goes on content too. These days that's contentious as it beings in value for money. Poor performance isn't challenging because it's a tax.
Those that don't watch the BBC a lot would be right to question why they get money for little service then.
They are swayed by ratings though. They aren't going to produce programmes no one watches or run on a series when the ratings are falling.
There are elements of being a public broadcaster that you can argue are for the good of the country. News (balance, unbiased...good luck on that one), education, etc. EastEnders? No so much.
So just how much of the programming is different to other channels?
In Starr's case it was more a case of Payee Unknown.
CHUK are done, they will only slide into oblivion. They might as well get on their bellies and get it over with. Some already are.
Umunna is a typical opportunist politician. A couple of years ago he was stating on social media he would never trust the Lib Dems because they firmly back Remain :roflmao: The guy was too scared to go up against Corbyn for leadership and is drifting around looking for the job elsewhere. Other than gaining one seat, for now, I don't see what they gain from taking him on as he is a bit of a toxic character these days.
Do Huawei matter? Surely post Brexit we will be returning to cups & string? :winks:
Personally feel that BBC & Channel 4 are the bravest broadcasters content wise in the UK.
I didn't say not swayed by ratings I said in theory isn't swayed by ratings.
The BBC should be, I agree, still held to the Reithian principles of Educate, Entertain & Inform.
Unique things that I really treasure about the BBC are many including BBC4, BBC6, BBC Radio 4 & BBC Radio 3
I must admit that BBC News has lost its way a bit recently and needs to get back to being the impartial filter for us all again
I could quite happily do without the Daytime templated BBC content where we get endless Antique shows in various formats and makeover shows, there must be better Daytime content than that
I, though Im sure many disagree, believe that there is a quality threshold with BBC drama that means we get quality UK drama from the BBC thats unique like Years and Years, Gentleman Jack, Les Mis etc etc
Boris tonight trotted out something else that he hadnt fully understood:-
Boris Johnson was challenged by Rory Stewart to detail what tariffs (taxes on imports) would be charged on agricultural goods crossing the border.
He said there would be "no tariffs or quotas" because "what we want to do is get a standstill in our current arrangements under GATT 24" until a free trade deal had been negotiated.
GATT 24 is an article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Supporters of a no-deal Brexit say it would allow the UK to continue to trade with the EU without tariffs for up to 10 years, while the two sides were negotiating a permanent future trade agreement.
But you can't use it in this way - a trade agreement has to be agreed in principle before Article 24 can be used.
It also needs the two sides to agree - the UK can't just impose it on the EU.
It would have to be agreed before A50 ends. Therefore it takes us back to the WA and agreeing to terms favourable to the EU or they won't commit to trade deals anyway. Remember, the EU won't agree to even talk without the WA yet the WA itself outlines future trade agreements in principle (and more).
However, how do we know anything Boris says will be anything like it will be once PM? For all we know he could push a CU and that removes GATT24 unless it's a new form of CU in which case GATT24 comes into play. So, is he advocating Corbyn's McGuffin?
So, doesn't he understand it? Or is it a matter we don't understand what his plans are? He could unite Parliament behind a CU deal, since he's a popular Tory and the CU was popular across the House, and stitch up voters...who I don't think he's gives a toss about. I also doubt he cares about bringing down the Tories as his career is all important and will continue regardless as we are seeing already. The House will happily sign us up to a CU and brush as much of Leave under the carpet as possible.
My take? I will listen to them once we have a PM. Until then it's as valid as Corbyn and his McGuffin. They can trot out any old BS as it's all grandstanding to get the job. Only the politically naďve are going to take any of this without a border busting lorry load of salt.
May's WA has clauses to cover future relationship. That would be why the EU was said to have granted a transition period yet that's more that GATT24 allowed for it and we both agreed to it. But I find it interesting that A50 has wording to suggest a future relationship too and so it will come down to the detail in GATT24 about the minimum requirements to fulfil such an agreement.
Here is GATT24:https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e...on_art24_e.htm
Note that you cannot opt for a worse trade deal in this process unless by two thirds majority.
Looking at the clauses it would appear what May was negotiating would fit this. No Deal certainly can't other than to agree to a plan and schedule. At that point the transition period kicks in whilst you agree the new agreement.
So, what constitutes a plan? Bare in mind the WA, as published by Parliament on the legislation site, contains no information about what it will achieve other than for us to sit down and have some chats about something. So, does that constitute a plan even though it has nothing in it? Therefore can you argue you can set up a meeting schedule and still leave under A50 whilst preserving this future agreement? Yes.
Stewart wants to know actual tariff info but that constitutes the finer detail doesn't it? Had May agreed to that? Therefore, subject to interpretation by "the lawyers" as Ian Hislop would drawl, he could have passed the minimum bar there.
Another MP facing a by-election due to public petition:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...cid=spartanntp
:yesyes:
If I did this I would have been sacked so I'm glad we are seeing the people having a voice in what should be an automatic by-election for disgrace in a public office.
This issue is currently raging in the US over abortion but I had no idea we had our own problems:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-contraception
And an interesting point is how the pharmacist avoided citing the real issue, likely religious beliefs?
https://rightsinfo.org/is-it-legal-f...moral-grounds/
ANDQuote:
In a statement, LloydsPharmacy said that it was investigating the incident to “better understand” what happened to Siani.A spokesperson said that they “adhere to the GPhC guidelines which allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense medication that goes against their personal beliefs if there is adequate alternative care available for the patient.“As part of our own guidance, we encourage our pharmacists to use their professional judgement, but they must always put the patient first. In this case, the pharmacist was a locum pharmacist, not a full time employee. However, we will be communicating to our colleagues to remind them of this guidance.
Medical and religious shouldn't collide. If your religion means you cannot administer legal treatments acceptable to the patient then you shouldn't be in the job. The law trumps religion.Quote:
The General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) guidelines state that the religion, personal values or beliefs of pharmacy professionals may influence “day-to-day practice, particularly whether they feel able to provide certain services”.This includes contraception, fertility medicines, hormonal therapies, mental health and well-being, substance misuse and sexual health.However, the guidelines also advise pharmacists to “respect cultural differences” and make sure every person is treated fairly whatever their personal views.It also states that pharmacists should “recognise their own values and beliefs but not impose them on other people” and that they should “take responsibility for ensuring that person-centred care is not compromised because of personal values and beliefs”.