beyond our ken
-
Posts
5,615 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by beyond our ken
-
-
13 hours ago, northstbuddie said:
Good on Celtic FC for taking action against the GB.
If only the other half of the ugly sisters would take similar action against the singing of mindless sectarian songs as wintnessed on their recent visit to the SMISA Stadium. Apparently they find it quite acceptable for their fans to be singing in earshot of national TV cameras ....."up to our knees in ******** blood".
Yet again the football and police authorities also choose to turn a deaf ear to this bile - I wonder why that is.
The down side is tolerance of this mob by the so-called decent supporters, any of whom that I've spoken to offer trite excuses around them being good for the matchday experience.
Apart from one or two exceptions I think the GB only say out loud what the rest of them are thinking.
-
11 hours ago, Slarti said:
Quote mining at its best there, bud.
What about this, from just before your quote?
"Subsequent international agreements have recognised that the freedom is not an unrestricted right. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1950, was explicit that the right may be limited by law. Article 10 of the convention reads that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” and that this includes “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”. But it adds the caveat that restrictions may be imposed for a variety of reasons, including to protect the rights of others:
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has summarised what this has come to mean in the UK. It said that “everyone has the right to free speech within the law” and noted that “unless it is unlawful, speech should usually be allowed”. The committee’s summary continued:
The right extends further than just the right to make speeches. It extends to all forms of expression. Together, freedom of expression and freedom of association cover the right to form societies with lawful aims, even where those aims are not shared with the majority, and the right to peaceful protest.
Free speech is not an absolute right: it is right that there are limitations to ensure that it is not exercised in a way which causes harm to others. We note the law prohibits speech which, for example, incites murder, violence or terrorism; stirs up racial hatred, or hatred to other groups; causes fear of violence, alarm or distress, constitutes harassment or is defamatory or malicious. It does not prohibit speech which others may find upsetting or offensive."
Which is just a wordier way of saying what I said - freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequencies of your speech.You missed a bit, maybe it didn't get past the proof readers.
"Other people usually suffer the consequences of the shit some people pour onto the world whilst referrencing their own right to "free speech""
-
19 hours ago, stlucifer said:
You obviously don't understand. It's about fairness and non discrimination. Regardless of gender, creed or colour.
I can't help that you are not willing to call it out. Why is it one section of society get to have a national celebration of their colour when the rest of us would be called racist if we did the same?
I'm a celebrity comes back soon and that will eat up a comparative, if not even larger slice of airtime on our tellies and teaches us sod all. Why not complain about that?
FFS, It's a few telly programmes over a few weeks once a year, not a threat to so-called national identity. The only unpleasant aspect is the fact that it is used to try and remind us that Lenny Henry was once funny.
Can't you just let people have that without complaining? Scotland has a channel dedicated to Scottish content and a large part of that focusses on the general history of Scotland and rarely touches on black history
The same goes for other UK national tv channels that focus on generic UK history.
Given the exploitation, prejudice and rejection that Black people have had to and still endure, it can only be helpful if they remind themselves and the rest of us what their history in the UK actually is, because there will no meaningful reconcilliation between groups unless people go into that process.
Maybe you are making the mistake of thinking that events like Black History Month are an exclusive celebration of Black culture and that's not the case. It's an opportunity for everyone to get involved and learn more about how the nation came to be as it is.
-
3 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:
Well if your comment was not aimed at anyone in particular and was triggered by something you witnessed yesterday it’s all the more cryptic and bizarre.
I trust that you reported the crime to the police.
WORMHOLE ALERT
-
Very good performance from almost the whole team, let's face it, how hard to watch have St Johnstone been in recent years? The foulingand spoiling was straight out of the Martindale playbook and hell-mend Mclean for employing that strategy. I don't feel sorry for their players yet i noted that they all looked miserable and frustrated.
It highlights to me that while I sometimes have resevations about Robinson's selection and tactics, he is definitely a leader and has sold the philosophy brilliantly to his players.
The final whistle celebrations are almost worth the entrance fee on their own.
While I disagree with about 90% of what Tom English says, he was spot on after the game. He told a caller that Saints fans should stop speculating about the future prospects and just enjoy the moment, because it's a pretty good place to be..
-
I don't think he was very well for quite long time, I maybe recall that he had a drink & drug addiction to get over
"Perry became addicted to Vicodin after a jet-ski accident in 1997, and he completed a 28-day rehab program that year.[60] His weight fluctuated over the next few years, dropping to 145 pounds (66 kg) due to pancreatitis.[61] He entered rehab in February 2001 for an addiction to Vicodin, methadone, amphetamines, and alcohol.[62][63]"
Regardless ofhis success, that was a sad way tolive a life.
-
6 hours ago, stlucifer said:
Setting it up is one thing. Many people start up clubs/associations. Championing it on a supposedly all inclusive media station without a complimentary viewpoint is, IMO, discriminatory. In fact. The narrative being driven by those who are not unbiased can be construed as biased in its content.
I understand
it’s about Black folk and you are upset
i can’t help you out with that
-
30 minutes ago, stlucifer said:
Exactly. Why shouldn't there be such a thing? Positive discrimination is still discrimination.
You are right
You, Scott and everyone who never got off their arse to set it up are horribly discriminatory
you do realise it was set up by black people who felt their history needed wider appreciation and they wouldn’t necessarily have thought about other skin hues?
Thought not!
-
Just wanted to add my thoughts before I sign off from this thread
The "scum Israelis", in my view are the group in power who hide behind a weak Netanyahu as they continue to push their fear & persecution agenda so that they can gain & retain power, whether that be for the sake of Ideaology, personal gain, ignorance or a combination thereof.
The vast majority of Israelis would be reasonable people whose attitudes & instincts are tempered by the situation they find themselves in. Like many in our country, the fear mongers have developed a warped sense of identity, entitlement and persecution in what they see as their homeland and a lot of ordinary people who would come to a different conclusion are being led up the garden path. In work, I often refer to the work of Stanley Milgram when exploring behaviours and he sought out, as the child of Jewish refugees, to understand how perfectly decent and reasonable Germans were led to committ the atrocities of the third reich. His research suggests to many that the presence of an "authority figure" who absolves people of any responsibility they might feel when carrying out command, a common subject or enemy, an unremitting message & line of command along with an end that justifies the means are the basic blocks of manipulating mass behaviour. People's behaviours towards others are basically motivated by either fear (hatred is simply a product of fear) or kindness and you can convince people that the best way to be kind to their kin is to unite against someone else.
There will only be peace for Israel once they accept the fragility and unsustainability of their position and the fact that they really should be doing more to educate their own people and look for a way out of conflict. Israel is like Palestine, they are a weak nation if left to their own devices and their strength comes from those who subsidise and support them and Palestine's situation is that they are also a weak nation with significantly less outside support. I really think that Israellis should be asking if it continues to be both fair and sustainable for them to be so dependent on other countries for their sustainability and protection. I also think Israel needs to rein in their ambitions to restore their domain to what they have been led to believe is their birthright, it isn't. No part of the earth is anybody's birthright, we are caretakers, not owners and the lack of a concept of being able to share is the backstory to all wars.
So my not very scientific view is that Israel needs to look to a series of compromises that restores human rights to everyone in their region and the outside actors need to step away from enabling one side whilst offering poor mitigation to the other for the harm done. The outside actors , in my view, are so scared of offending the pro-Israelli lobby that they simply accede to the demands of the lobby and just continue to compound the mistakes of the past, probably thinking that as individuals they will will be footnotes in history by the time the obvious ultimate shitfest occurs. In order to quell the pro-Israelli lobby they need to work on the attitudes INSIDE Israel so that the lobby can't continually demand arms & warfare. Israel and their neighbours need to work on what they can do FOR each other rather than what they can do TO each other.
The whole area was a giant f**k-up as soon as the outsiders decided they knew best and the only way out of it is for outside parties to stop enabling the entrenched positions and foster a much more benevolent and compassionate attitude. In short, take away the fear and you have no reason to fight.
All that being said, it seems to me that unless a totalitarian regime is in place, nobody settles for anything in the near-east and most of the screw-ups started with the removal of totalitarians. At least it has been proven that warfare and killing is a cycle and not a solution so maybe there is hope, somewhere.
Debate, discuss, argue all you want, i might read it but won't be responding.
-
10 hours ago, W6er said:
Interesting:
So Israel is making threats against Russia now, regardless of how difficult that makes life for other nations trying to handle Russian threat.
Yet another promise they can't keep and an extension of the stance that the only answer to one killing is to kill 100 others. Israelis should understand that when those in power fail so miserably with their unfulfillable promises, they will simply resort to sabre rattling and rabble-rousing in order to stay in power and prevent a subsequent government from uncovering the lies, corruption and incompetence that they inflicted on all.
Maybe we should all understand that.
-
37 minutes ago, DougJamie said:
The facts are 5000 are dead...all innocent. So my thread stands. Hamas are scum but so is the facist Israeli Gov
The fact that many people have pointed out is that the bombardment of areas where civilians live and the order to vacte other areas are the reasons so many were using the hospital for shelter as well as healthcare, so who blew up what only matters to a certain extent. Something was going to explode in that area at some point and a load of innocents were going to be hurt.
Aside that, there are the thousands of civilians killed, around 50% of the population of Gaza is under 18, so it's not correct to say that all residents are combatants at this stage.
Hamas are responsible for their own actions, Netanyahu failed miserably on his security promises and could well have been relying on the threat of a disproportionate response as a deterrent to any hostilities. The problem with perpetual threats is that people eventually become emboldened by living under them. Netanyahu is a fool and it seems he failed to realise his responsibility extends to mitigating unintended consequences, so he bounces himself into killing loads more people when he knows he can't really disassemble Hamas in the way he promises.
-
Nah!
The club has allowed him back in, they clearly want him kept out and he has dropped action. He got what he wanted and the club has gone back on a decision. Probably a very knee-jerk and ill-advised one.
It's just the slant that the statement put on it that makes it look like like he backed down
-
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
Hopefully a sign that the entire situation is getting put behind us. It’s been a ridiculous mountain out of a mole hill from the get go.
We are doing brilliant on the park. Also seemingly a lot has improved off the park financially after the fallout from Covid.
Better looking forward than concentrating on a ‘he said, she said’ argument over something that was never even going to happen.
Was the legal action not prompted by the ban?
If so, the notification may be a wee bit disingenuous implying "he backed down, so we let him back in". The reality is that the club backed down on this as there is no mention of retraction or an agreement not to repeat his accusations, is there any other case ongoing between the club, Kibble or any other party around AW's statements? My recollection is that there were two Kibble employees who were treatening action regarding comments and accusations they attribute to AW. There is no mention of that so my assumption is that while the club might be out of it, a process that still has the potential to generate bad publicity and maybe even financial implications is still underway.
Or maybe it is all swept under the carpet?
-
5 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:
Why does this being always have to be involved?
If god created the universe who or what created god?
Typo
-
3 hours ago, W6er said:
I simply responded to a post on here. I haven't looked to see what the woman said, so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick. However, if she was criticising the UK for it's colonial history then she is unquestionably being a hypocrite - I will leave that for you and @ALBIONSAINT to conclude.
Let's examine the facts:
1) She's opposed to colonialism. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume she wanted the British out of Zimbabwe. Now, whilst Rhodesia had declared independence from the United Kingdom some years before, Ian Smith governed the country until 1979, when he was deposed by Mugabe. Colonial rule ended in 1979!
2) Mugabe committed genocide in 1982 (1) and ultimately turned the relatively prosperous and safe country he bequeathed, which was a net exporter of food, into a ruinous country where there are food shortages.
3) At some point under Mugabe's rule, this individual fled the post-colonial Zimbabwe for the United Kingdom as a refugee.
4) If she has obtained citizenship after January 2004 (2) she would have pledged an oath of allegiance to the Queen (and her successors) as well as pledging her loyalty the UK. (3)
So to summarise:
She has fled a country that deteriorated after the end of British colonial rule, which is something she presumably supported, and sought sanctuary in the UK. She has then pledged her fidelity to the UK, taken an oath of allegiance to the Monarchy which is symbolic of colonialism (Queen Victoria was the Empress of India (4), after all)...and then she denounces it for its colonial past!
Can you really not see the hypocrisy in that?
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukurahundi
(2) https://immigrationbarrister.co.uk/british-citizenship-the-citizenship-ceremony/
(3) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c9f4ded915d6969f462e6/oathofallegiance.pdf
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_India
As for Ireland. I have told Irish people that their island is part of the British Isles, because it is! https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Isles The generalisation that Irish people are aggressive and will lynch me for stating a fact is totally alien to my experience. I take it you've encountered hostility when raising the term, have you? Aye, some people are too ignorant or stupid to differentiate between the geographical term, British Isles, and the British state. It's a term that is no longer used in Ireland much and certainly not in Republican circles. It's akin to telling a Brexiteer he's European. He very much is a European, whether or not the UK is a member of the EU.
Finally, we come to Israel. If you read the Balfour Declaration you will see that it states (my emphasis):
The deal was reneged on by fanatical Zionists who waged a war on the British to get them out of Palestine so they could found their Jewish state.
Have you never heard of the King David Hotel bombing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
Here's a list of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks
Israel was literally founded as a result of terrorism. Unfortunately at that time the Empire was coming to an end, which I'm sure you'll agree is a good thing, and we withdrew from Palestine.
If
Assuming
Pish!
-
3 hours ago, W6er said:
Nobody's saying she shouldn't be allowed to comment on the government, at least I didn't say that. I said it's hypocritical of her. As I'm sure you know, Zimbabwe has deteriorated rapidly since the country was freed from British influence. Mugabe was initially lauded as a hero, hence his honorary degree and knighthood, but his land reform, in which he dispossessed white farmers of their land, coupled with his economic mismanagement, has ruined the country. Not to mention the mass graves that were found.
Can you not see the irony in a Zimbabwean fleeing the country after its liberation...and moving to the land of her people's oppressors, and then moaning about colonialism? If, as you imply, she's just come here for the economic benefits and still bears a seething resentment of British society (and perhaps British people), then I'm not sure how that's supposed to be 'good'.
The Irish are not foreigners. Whilst the Irish have established a republic and severed ties with the British state, they did so in 1922 after ~700 years of British rule. Would you consider the English people to be foreign if Scotland gained independence?
Indeed, if you were to go back far enough, then the British Isles was settled by people who migrated after the ice retreated following the last Ice Age. Then, as in all continents, there was tribal conflict and migration in Europe. Scotland was said to have been unified in 843 AD.
Of course, if you go back far enough all people come from Adam and Eve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
If you go way back to the start of life on earth, >3 billion years ago, we were all microscopic organisms. How does any of that negate the existence of Scotland or the Scottish people?
So in need of an argument that you are taking implicitions from what i said that simply aren' t there, knock yersel' out.
The bottom line is that she liked a post that referred to Israel as a vile colonnial alliance, I can understand that viewpoint and even many that support Israel will concede that the inauguration of he state was one of the biggest cock-ups and ill-thought out escapades in anglo-american dealmaking history.
She describes herself as a student of decolonisation, quite a valid acivity for someone who originates from (did she really"flee") a country that was colonised and is sorting out the problems that colonnialism caused half a century after we got out. So Irony? I just dont see it.
And as for Guido's final comment, she stated that she had one hope before posting a Palestinian flag. But maybe she also posted that the hope was around peace, reconciliation or just fairness. I don't know if she did but GF has a history of posting only things that suit their own agenda. Apparently the tweets are now removed so it will be hard to check.
As for all the other stuff, so what. Try telling people from the Island of Ireland that they are from the British Isles and see how far you get. In fact, throw in the term "mainland" then run like feck. It doesn't change my opinion that people are rounding on someone new to this country who has pointed out something that the UK was complicit in decades ago as being wrong. History has proven it as such since Israel in it's current form is not a sustainable indepenedent state and is entirely dependent on foreign money and arms which it uses to support it's chosen method of dealing with Palestine, which is simply oppressive.
At no point does she decry the UK, it's government at the time she is living here or the British people, as Albion Saint states without offering any evidence. The whole basis of using the word "irony" seems to be that she is Zimbabwean by birth and therefore less entitled to these views than someone who is born in the UK. And is she a hypocrite when she left a place that is bad and has the temerity to suggest that her new place needs a bit of work (although she doesn't seem to say that, even indirectly)?
-
12 hours ago, W6er said:
There does seem to be something slightly hypocritical about bemoaning colonialism and choosing to live in a foreign country, on a different continent, which relatively recently had an Empire. That's especially true of a Zimbabwean, given that until the late 1970s it was relatively prosperous and known as the 'Breadbasket of Africa' and, of course, Rhodesia. Having deposed Ian Smith and replacing him with the charming Robert Mugabe, recipient of an honorary degree from Edinburgh University and an honorary knighthood, you'd think she would have been happy in her free, native land.
I'd have thought, with the exception of immigrants post-WW II, most people's ancestors would come almost exclusively from the British Isles, at least back until the Norman invasion. There may be a few exceptions - e.g. Jews and Huguenots. Certainly mine do, as does my partner's. It's actually quite interesting to do and I would highly recommend it if you have the time. I used ancestry.com and foun
12 hours ago, W6er said:There does seem to be something slightly hypocritical about bemoaning colonialism and choosing to live in a foreign country, on a different continent, which relatively recently had an Empire. That's especially true of a Zimbabwean, given that until the late 1970s it was relatively prosperous and known as the 'Breadbasket of Africa' and, of course, Rhodesia. Having deposed Ian Smith and replacing him with the charming Robert Mugabe, recipient of an honorary degree from Edinburgh University and an honorary knighthood, you'd think she would have been happy in her free, native land.
I'd have thought, with the exception of immigrants post-WW II, most people's ancestors would come almost exclusively from the British Isles, at least back until the Norman invasion. There may be a few exceptions - e.g. Jews and Huguenots. Certainly mine do, as does my partner's. It's actually quite interesting to do and I would highly recommend it if you have the time. I used ancestry.com and found all sorts of really interesting facts that I was hitherto unaware of.
d all sorts of really interesting facts that I was hitherto unaware of.
If someone is accepted to live and work in a country, pay taxes and vote there then their ability to comment on government should not be challenged on the basis of where they came from.
British society is still a better place to live than Zimbabwe even though it needs a substantial upgrade in foreiegn policy, human rights and civic freedoms, or perhaps you haven't noticed the erosion of rights and freedoms that our governnent has enacted?
As for ancestry, there are more with Irish ancestry than not in Scotland, even if it is not dominant and going back millenia the indigenous population was supplemented by migrants.
-
2 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:
Oh this is a doozy, I am busy the now but will come back to it 👍🏻
Whatever
-
15 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:
Oh the irony. She is very proud of her Zambian heritage, I wonder how it would go down in Zambia if she decried the government and country she lives and works in? Not very well I would imagine given their terrible human rights record. Ain’t she lucky to live in such a wonderful democracy as Britain.
Well, she is Zimbabwean, not Zambian. The human rights issues are the same, if not worse, though. Is there any irony around being proud of where you come from and still being opposed to colonialism and the treatment of Palestinians? Absolutely not, you can be proud of your home, family and heritage without agreeing with all of the issues that go along with your background. Only people who have hope and care about a society can effect change, would you not agree?
And she really didn't tell any lies in anything you have re-quoted. It's all valid and up for discussion.
I would agree that the terms of her employment probably make it at least inadvisable and at worst forbidden to post personal views such as these but actually holding them is not in itself a massive sin.
So what do we have, a selective screengrab from Guido-F that you have used to suggest that she is lucky to be here, for what purpose? Do you suggest that if she wants to live in the UK she shouldn't criticise it just because of where she originally came from? You and I both have that right and we have both used it. I know my origins are from beyond these shores and would hazard a guess that at least some of yours are from another country, it's almost inevitable in this country.
I'll say again, her views seem to be less than radical and grounded in facts, so I will ask, what is the basis for singling this woman out? Is she just too recent an arrival in the UK? Is she from the wrong sort of place? Is it her deeper beliefs that bring her holding of these views into question?
-
We are almost at the point where the point of taking about this will be lost as escalation is a near certainty now
Would Israel blow up a Gaza hospital and blame it on Hamas? Absolutely
Would Hamas blow up a hospital to try an denigrate Israel? Very possibly
would either of them own up to a botched operation? No f**kkin chance
The fact that Israel has pointed the finger at third party is very suspicious
Nobody in the Arab world is buying Israel’s version of events according to Sky news
-
2 hours ago, faraway saint said:
Without reading the post above is it a front runner for "nob of the day" award?
Dearie me. 😴
Not any longer
-
1 minute ago, W6er said:
Other than a coalition government, in which Clegg made lots of concessions to the Tories, when was the last time the UK was governed by a party other than Labour or the Tories? I would argue that the difference between the two parties has narrowed hugely over the last few decades as well.
The Lib Dems are hardly very different to the other two, in any event.
Dance any more vigorously then the head of that pin will go straight up your arse
-
5 hours ago, W6er said:
Don't both sides do that?
Both sides also have a 'Friends of Israel' lobby group:
https://www.lfi.org.uk/ (Labour)
https://cfoi.co.uk/ (Conservative)
I think every British prime minister has proclaimed their support for Israel.
It's not just here, though. This was some time ago, but Netanyahu received several standing ovations from Congressmen on both sides:
Could they be any more ingratiating?
If in your mind there are only two “sides” in U.K. politics then maybe you need to drop the blinkers
-
The tories are shamelessly trying to cream cash from Jewish donors with this hideous virtue signalling
The 3 Monthly Spend
in SMiSA
Posted
the usual overheads would eat into that £31k quite substantially as you have to cover all of the taxes, food, drink, staff, energy and other costs. such as wear & tear and any impact on rateable value or licensing costs. It might provide around 10-15k a year until the loan is repaid and then maybe another 10k after that
Every little helps and it would be a good %age return on a 80k investment that would trickle into a variety of budgets in the club without in itself changing any part of the game when it comes to squad budgets. There is probably a greater need to rebuild the support functions at the club after cost-cutting took us to the bone last year than there is to add a tenth of a good player's salary.