SanguinePar

Something something, “break a leg”, something something.

Seriously though, I hope he’s ok.

Colonel Sanders, maybe…

Fucking hell. That’s just awful.

Agreed on abortion rights, they need to get their finger out and pass nationwide law that the states can’t overrule.

Jesus Christ, 1 in 3000? That’s terrifying.

The woman in the thumbnail is just OVERJOYED about this news! :-)

How long though, before simply not having connected features counts against us? Not hard to imagine a future where it’s mandatory in order to get insurance at all.

Members of the public aren’t allowed to shout during PMQs though, just elected members.

I don’t think it’s really a blow for Labour, given their withdrawal of support for their own candidate.

Had they had a normal by-election campaign and still lost to Galloway, then that would be a blow. This is just weird circumstance, and a political opportunist making the most of it.

Agreed, but not just them, it is also about making sure vaccines are properly available and accessible, the clinics are open when parents are able to get to them (or out of work hours) and that their availability is properly advertised and promoted. It needs to be made as easy as possible for people to get their kids jabbed with as little impact on their daily schedules as possible.

We shouldn’t hate the monarchy, necessarily. We should hate monarchy as a concept.

It’s archaic, it formalises and legitimises unbelievable levels of inequality and elitism, and it gives rise to at least the strong possibility (and in the UK’s case at least, the actuality) of a tiered legal system, with some laws simply not applying to some people because of their position.

It’s a repulsive idea, based on historical might and hereditary right, and with no regard for democracy or equality of all people.

What good to you think will come of getting rid of them?

We’d become a proper modern country where the person who represents the nation is chosen by the nation? We’d move on from a system where who’s up front simply depends on who their mum or dad were? We’d rid ourselves of a system trained with centuries of imperial exploitation, racism and subjugation? We’d open up new tourism opportunities, with the palaces and castles being available for anyone to visit, a la Versailles?

And that’s just off the top of my head.

I think Paris will be a good test case. Could see other cities doing the same if it works, London especially.

Maybe they thought it was Paris, Texas?

Of course a Brexit-supporting rag is now complaining when the EU enforces the rules which Brexit means Britons now have to abide by. Caveat emptor you fucking idiots.

If you really want to scare/depress yourself, check out the BBC TV movie Threads. It’s bleak as hell. Very good though.

Indeed - as Yes Prime Minister put it…

“Normally we partition the place. It’s what we did in Ireland, Cyprus, India and Palestine. It always worked.”

“Doesn’t partitioning always lead to civil war? It did in Ireland, Cyprus, India and Palestine.”

“Yes, but it kept them busy, and instead of fighting us they fought each other.”

Sadly, it seems unlikely - my concern is that right now it seems to be growing arms and legs, with various smaller disputes and conflicts all becoming intermingled. And given the second last point, that’s a pretty scary prospect.

It’s probably not unrelated to the fact that most of the people living in those countries happen to be Muslim.

Whereas in countries where a majority are Christians, conflicts tend to be fought mostly by… Christians. Eg Russia/Ukraine, many South American countries, even the events of the US Capitol on 6 Jan. Doubt there was a majority of Muslims “fighting like hell” that day. Not to mention both of the World Wars in the last century and a bit.

Meanwhile, there’s places like Myanmar where, I’d feel fairly safe in betting that the majority of combatants in recent conflicts are Buddhists. As were those in Cambodia in the 70s. You could also even double up and consider the Vietnam war where Buddists and Christians were the actors.

So maybe it’s just religion generally? Probably not though, since China’s population is majority atheist, but that didn’t help the students in Tiananmen Square any more than it helped Hong Kong.

The point is, humans in general have a seemingly neverending thirst for conflict, and not all of it can be lazily attributed to which religion they happen to be.

Perhaps right now there is more conflict in Islamic countries, but it wasn’t always so and it won’t always be so either. Snidely hinting that Islam is the problem is not helpful.

Probably lots of things - what did you have in mind?

Ok, so… (in no particular order)

• Hamas murdered hundreds of Israelis
• Israel’s defence force is currently flattening most of Gaza and thousands of its people
• Hezbollah fired missiles into Israel from Lebanon
• Iranian-backed Houtis in Yemen are launching missile strikes on ships in the Red Sea
• The US and UK launched missile attacks on the Houtis
• Iran fired missiles into Pakistan
• Iran fired missiles into Iraq
• Iran fired missiles into Syria
• India and Pakistan are in a near-constant state of nuclear-backed tension
• Turkey attacks Kurds in Syria and Iraq

Added 18 Jan:

• Pakistan fires missiles into Iran
• Jordan fires missiles into Syria

Anything else? (Loads, obviously)

What a fucking mess :-(