Discussion of article from the Mail's columnists and RightMinds contributors
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
By Fozzy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#100765
I always remember seeing a TV programme about Powell where basically a camera followed him around on a "typical" day. The way he treated his children was quite unpleasant, basically ordering them around and getting sarcastic if everything wasn't done precisely as he thought it should be. It was fairly pathetic that he felt the need to score points off them, but the fact that he thought it was fine to do that in front of a TV camera spoke volumes about him.
By glasgowgril
Membership Days Posts
#100779
Not defending Powell's character or racist views (perish the thought), but I feel bound to point out that he was so clever that he was a professor of Greek in his 20s and did some excellent academic work. As a classicist myself, I wish he'd stuck to that line. He'd have been pretty famous but in a good way.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#100794
To quote Victor Lewis-Smith (and risk invoking Godwin): "You can't help thinking that if Josef Goebbels was born in our day and age, he'd have made a cracking advertising executive."
 
By davidjay
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#100838
moonshien wrote:
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Not quite. Benn is very gentlemanly and has 'British' characteristics of tolerance. His ideas may be a bit loopy (as indeed may he) and he is quite self-obsessed, but he is a nice man. Drinks a lot of tea.
Powell was that sort of driven intellectual who believes that he has the big answer to an imaginary question - and any means will justify the end. Thoroughly unpleasant - even the other Tories of the time thought so. Any man so beloved of London cab drivers must be a wrong 'un.

weren't trade unionists pretty fond of him as well?
He tapped into the stream of anti-immigrant populism that had always been prevalent amongst the uneducated.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#102358
glasgowgril wrote:Not defending Powell's character or racist views (perish the thought), but I feel bound to point out that he was so clever that he was a professor of Greek in his 20s and did some excellent academic work. As a classicist myself, I wish he'd stuck to that line. He'd have been pretty famous but in a good way.
I did classics as well, and can only remember Powell having done a dictionary for Herodotus. Very useful but all he would have had to was look up in Liddle and Scott (or perhaps How and Wells) and put that in a dictionary format for one author.

He did do some good work on mental illness to be fair to him, and did criticise the Gibraltar shootings, despite being a unionist MP by then. But he was dreadful overall. Not only the obvious policy stuff but in terms of the way he treated his local party, whose loyalty he repaid by storming out in 1974 and telling the public to vote Labour.

For an entertaining attack on him by a good Tory, check out Ian Gilmour.
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#106750
To be absolutely fair most of the history of the event is skewed by the western media and historians to portray the Soviets as the guilty party, but the original formation of the distrust was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. These were dropped ten days before the Soviets were due to decalre war on Japan themselves after regrouping from their bloody efforts in the west, and were considered an effort by the Americans to keep them out and claim the glory for themselves by the Soviets. Which, in actual fact, wasn't actually far from the truth...
By moonshien
#106758
bluebellnutter wrote:To be absolutely fair most of the history of the event is skewed by the western media and historians to portray the Soviets as the guilty party, but the original formation of the distrust was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. These were dropped ten days before the Soviets were due to decalre war on Japan themselves after regrouping from their bloody efforts in the west, and were considered an effort by the Americans to keep them out and claim the glory for themselves by the Soviets. Which, in actual fact, wasn't actually far from the truth...
And also to say to the Soviets 'hey, look what we've got, and we're willing to use them'
By tc-obo
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#106768
Waterstones wrote:Mr Alexander also seems to be a fan of the USSR,he's written in the past that he thinks the Cold War was America's fault and not those poor hard done by communists,care to tell that to the 200 million people killed by communism Mr Alexander? :roll:
An interesting point to note on that subject is the consistent effort of the USA during the Cold War to pretend that the USSR presented a nuclear threat; in reality, as has been pointed out by many ex-CIA personnel, it was clear throughout that the Soviet Union wished to avoid nuclear war at all costs. Hence, some might say, the humiliating climb-down at the Cuban missile crisis (precipitated in any case by the decision of the USA to store nuclear missiles in Turkey).

The facts are that the Cold War was caused by mutual distrust, stemming largely from the concerns of the Allies over the Soviet plan for Eastern Europe, which the Soviets saw as lying within their natural sphere of influence, and the USSR's worries that the USA was attempting to cheat them, particularly over the invasion of Japan, and their concerns over the nuclear arsenal of the USA. Neither side really comes out with glory in the international relations stakes - one example is in Stalin's willingness to allow the free reunion of Germany under whichever government it chose, on the proviso that it would be a neutral state (like Austria would become), which was refused by the United States. A contrary example would be Stalin reneging on his promise to allow fully free and fair elections in Poland and instead parachute his own people in.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#107308
Yes. The policy of the Tsars was to expand southwards to warm-water harbours, and to extend westwards to form a buffer zone in Europe, uncle Joe's just being an extension of that same policy.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#107314
Well, yes - because for the first time the USSR had legitimised its expansionist plans, the UN had been set up and NATO/Warsaw Pact were just around the corner.
 
By Bails
Membership Days
#113470
What about this?
Holy smoke and mirrors
The Pope reminded us that the Bible and Christianity arrived in Britain more than a thousand years ago.

He was, of course, correct. But as with any statement of real or assumed fact by the Pope or his Anglican counterparts, this raises insoluble questions in the inquiring mind.

How did we manage before that? Or, to put it another way, if Christianity and baptism are essential to get to Heaven, as the Catholics insist, why did God carelessly wait so long before revealing himself to the ancient Britons?

You may also ponder why translating the Bible into English was for so long a capital offence.

Why, come to that, did God not reveal himself to others before the Jews?

The Pope also wants us to keep Christmas. But there is no evidence that the divine birth took place on December 25 or, indeed, a particular date in a particular year.

Historians believe through Gospel references to Herod - about whom we know quite a lot - that Christ was probably born in 4BC by the normal calendar.

Christmas Day was merely the continuation of the pagan feast for the depth of winter. It seems to be reverting to that anyway.
Seems to be going against the Mail line and saying that christianity isn't that important/is bollocks. And that Christmas isn't actually anything special either. :?
Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Of course they agree. Because it's not them affect[…]

The Tories, Generally

https://twitter.com/RalfLittle/status/119689848163[…]

The LibDems, generally

That reminds me of Rick Spleen's vague plans for […]

Nigel Farage

I'm sure Sgt Major Williams will be along to comme[…]