egg

You have no right whatsoever to say that a Jew born in the holocaust cannot make that comparison. Your views are clear. Hers I respect.

Although plenty of decent Jewish people do. Miriam Margolyes has risen from bloody irritating to bloody decent in my eyes with her comments. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMiL0mXI3kM/?igsh=MTYzdjJoYjJwb20xYQ==

We need the likely starting team working the shape, not just those left behind. The point is, him playing a 3 tomorrow is not indefensible. Personally, I think it's understandable.

Of course it is. We've had an international break and no opportunity to work, as a group, on a new shape.

Sponsorship duties. Get in, get out.

Anyways, Romsey show this morning, music in the city pm, dinner this evening. I'm out.

That's your take. It's not her message as I see and hear it. Restraint is "his death shouldn't have happened, and while we should all unite, I'll carry Charlie's message". She carries the message of sadness and divide, not sadness and unity. She had a platform to promote some calm, not speak as she did the maga lot.

That's a very naive take on her message. Those she's speaking to will not interpret it that way.

Restraint is not using that language or tone of voice. It's provocative. Fires over there need dampening, not fuelling by grieving widows.

There's nothing like using a tragedy to call for unity and respectful dialogue. Or something.

I'm out of words for the Israeli regime. The decent people get it, and the blinkered never will. The sycophant Starmer has made his bed on the wrong side of right, and won't shift unless and until Trump develops some morality. The situation in Gaza will get worse until Egypt has no choice but to take people in, and we'll see even more of that ^^^ kind of appalling behaviour in the West Bank, more illegal settlements, more outposts, more mass "arrests" and detention without charge (basically hostage taking), and the continued annexation of Palestinian land. What we're seeing is an utter disgrace.

We've shifted from the pilot point, and the rights of doubting the competence of a sufficiently qualified black pilot. I remain of the view that he was out of line, but I also dislike quotas. He could have just said that the best candidates should get the gig and if they're all black, so be it, but he went a different route.

People's styles change. Some play for reaction, and certain audiences. Each to their own.

We're talking about the pilots as per Kirk. The standard isn't being lowered to facilitate the quota, so how can there be a doubt re the qualifications of anyone passing? I get there may be better candidates, but that doesn't render the quota appointments inadequate.

Some are, for sure. Others are authentic.

The merits of a quota system are entirely different to feeling it's ok to doubt someone's credentials, based on skin colour, when they've actually met a standard which was the standard prior to the quota. Fwiw, I disagree with quota's - hire on merit.

If the standard is 80%, and all pass that, it's not lowering the standard. The standard is met. I'd take your point if the standard was say 90% but they had to engineer that downwards to meet a quota. He suggested that happened re Harvard.

Yep. This. Everyone chosen under that policy will be sufficiently qualified to fly a plane. Having concerns to the contrary is based on prejudice.

Why does it matter if someone is less qualified than someone else if they are sufficiently qualified?

I have to say, the video as a whole gives a different presentation than the isolated quotes. However, the fundamental point for me is that he seems to assume that in meeting a quota, it's right to question whether some of the black people who've made it through may be unqualified. It's not correct to think that way, and it's racial prejudice all day long. It's entirely possible to meet a quota and have sufficiently qualified people fly the planes. Moreover, no airline company on the planet is going to throw an incompetent Muppet into a plane cabin because they're black.

Or Lordshill Way, then the avenue.

Simon Bodkin's US gun problem explanation/analogy made me chuckle. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOdZQNyiPZn/?igsh=ZndncG9pMXl3ZzR6 Has the travel show finished? Was enjoying that.

You're missing the point. There's a world of difference between a politically motivated killing by a civilian of another, and the racially motivated killing of a civilian by a police officer. The chances of the former, sadly can and are often increased because that's human nature. That's a world away from the police who's job it is to police and uphold the law, not breach it. The differences are so vast they don't belong in the same discussion.

I'm really not. The general public and the police are entirely different. You can, and will, increase your chances of crossing a wrong un in the real world if you spout extreme stuff. That's a harsh reality. You shouldn't expect that from the police.

People can always increase their risk of harm from deranged people, but that's altogether different to the police. The two situations are completely different.