Best Of

@MrJCrouch

Just 35% of Brits now see the US as an ally, while 34% view it as a threat. A dramatic shift in public opinion in response to #Trump.
Here’s what the latest @OpiniumResearch polling reveals

https://x.com/MrJCrouch/status/1912793440615649564

That is reflected in a recent experience of mine. A friend of my family, a woman in her early twenties, recently flew to Central America for an organised holiday. Although not a political type and generally not particularly interested in foreign affairs, she flatly refused to fly there via the US because she was worried that something might happen to her while passing though. This seemed a bit over the top to me, but there are some people who, without particular reason, are sufficiently scared by Trump to avoid the US.

I think that's sensible given the destination was central America. ICE are deporting people for just being in the same room as suspected criminals. You'd be worried about something similar happening on the way back, particularly if she picks up a friend (or partner) on her travels.

If the risk was a tiny chance of deportation, I would take it without much thought.

But the risk seems to be more like a tiny chance of a few weeks in a fairly unpleasant prison followed by the deportation. No thanks.

My wife is american. We are both academics. We have cancelled all our trips to the states. Conferences (which are paid for my our universities), and family holidays. We are diversifying away from Amazon, Dropbox, products. Look at Harvard and Columbia. Researchers and grad students being deported. Lack of academic freedom.... that is a no thanks from me.

@MrJCrouch

Just 35% of Brits now see the US as an ally, while 34% view it as a threat. A dramatic shift in public opinion in response to #Trump.
Here’s what the latest @OpiniumResearch polling reveals

https://x.com/MrJCrouch/status/1912793440615649564

That is reflected in a recent experience of mine. A friend of my family, a woman in her early twenties, recently flew to Central America for an organised holiday. Although not a political type and generally not particularly interested in foreign affairs, she flatly refused to fly there via the US because she was worried that something might happen to her while passing though. This seemed a bit over the top to me, but there are some people who, without particular reason, are sufficiently scared by Trump to avoid the US.

I think that's sensible given the destination was central America. ICE are deporting people for just being in the same room as suspected criminals. You'd be worried about something similar happening on the way back, particularly if she picks up a friend (or partner) on her travels.

If the risk was a tiny chance of deportation, I would take it without much thought.

But the risk seems to be more like a tiny chance of a few weeks in a fairly unpleasant prison followed by the deportation. No thanks.

My wife is american. We are both academics. We have cancelled all our trips to the states. Conferences (which are paid for my our universities), and family holidays. We are diversifying away from Amazon, Dropbox, products. Look at Harvard and Columbia. Researchers and grad students being deported. Lack of academic freedom.... that is a no thanks from me.

My cousin, who is an Emeritus Professor at Simon Fraser, refused to travel in the US in Trump's first term. Said Trump was mad and bad in equal parts so you couodn't be sure what might happen.

He's a smart cookie - well ahead of the curve on that one.

Regarding the pronoun debate - I am bemused. I very rarely see pronouns shown, even from the public sector (contrary to claims) so I did a review of my emails where there was a personal sign off. Not one had a pronoun. They were from UCL, Royal Surrey Hospital, Doctor, Dentist, HMRC, DVLA, L&G, Standard Life, umpteen MPs.

From memory I can only recall one use of a pronoun in the past in an email and that was from Daisy Cooper (she/her).

Bizarrely it can be useful with unusual names. Even not so unusual names. My wife has a Scottish name that seems obviously female to me, but seems to confuse some and also being a Doctor her prefix of Dr does not help. So many assume she is male. So it could help. Not that she or I use pronouns.

You are a despicable liar. "Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot."

Its true. You're in denial. Everyone has to do it. Even on here.

Ian
(He/Him)

Right, I've done a 10-minute very non-scientific study of my inbox.

- The majority of people in my organisation have pronouns in their email signatures. However, the incidence of people not using pronouns is probably higher than I'd imagined.
- Interestingly, a similar scan through a random sample (this week, three years ago) seems to suggest fewer pronouns than a few years ago.
- That said, this is difficult to evaluate fully because, also possibly interestingly, there are far more emails without signatures at all
- It's hard to tell objectively to what extent we have been 'pressured' - certainly I remember emails from HR asking us to add pronouns to signatures, though this is hard to dig out with a simple search of the word 'pronoun' because the word 'pronoun' features in the signature of so many emails - but clearly many people such as me haven't: this isn't necessarily a principled objection, but could equally well be reluctance to do a very low-priority admin task
- external emails from other public sector organisations are also majoritavely pronouned
- external emails from people trying to sell things to the public sector through spam are almost entirely pronouned
- external emails from consultants (and - while I don't know who @Casino_Royale is in real life, I think I know what industry he works in - and particularly from consultants his industry) are almost entirely pronouned.
- external emails from the general public almost entirely unpronouned.

However, I'm perfectly willing to believe e.g. Foxy that he rarely sees pronouns. Maybe we're all telling the truth and it varies from industry to industry.

Interesting, because my list was from a wide variety of public sector and private sector from the last couple of weeks. I obviously didn't count generic stuff that didn't have a person's name. Not a single pronoun where someone signed off with their name. Not one. I am involved in a campaign where I get or am copied in on a lot of emails from MPs. Again not one had a pronoun next to the name of the MP. On the contrary most these days have become more informal as if I know them personally.

As far as prior to that I can't be sure obviously, but it struck me when I had an email from Daisy Cooper (generic, not just to me) where she did use (she/her) and because of that I noticed it, which sort of implies if someone else had done so I would have noticed that also. It struck me because it was the first time I had seen it, rather than hearing about it.

Others have said it so I'm just clogging up the thread (as usual) but if you are dealing with the public sector, using pronouns is a thing in your email signature. Within the public sector, it is very much a thing, indeed it is often mandated by the senior leadership of these organisations.

I never had an issue with it at all - it's often a point of clarity and clarification to know how to refer to the person with whom you are dealing. Companies on the phone often ask me how I wish to be addressed and that's fine as well.

If people wish to be referred to as "they/them" that's their right and I respect it. I can't know it in advance but if they tell me I know and it's something of which I have to be aware.

You've never clogged up the thread in the 20-odd years you've been here, Stodge! Always interesting.

I must admit, I do wince when asked to refer to a known individual as 'they'. It just seems linguistically wrong. You might argue that actually it's fine, but it feels wrong. (An unknown individual doesn't feel so clunky, oddly, though I still try to avoid using that particular form - again, because it just doesn't feel the right use of language.)

I agree with your other two paras however.

(1/5)

I’ve worked for three very large telecoms companies and not once have I ever felt the need to put my pronouns on an email. I never have and never will as I can’t personally see the point.

But if somebody wants to, isn’t that up to them? I agree we should not force people to do it but assuming that’s the case would you still have a problem with it?

This seems no different than forcing me to wear a suit. I’m glad that’s over.

They can stick their pronouns up their butts, I use name or him / her, rest of the bollox they can get stuffed.

Never used pronouns. For me or for anybody else. Never had to.

That's just the way it rolls down here in Devon.

But you’re all weirdos down there in the West Country calling everybody ‘my lover’.

When I was a callow 17 year old visiting the West Country for the first time getting called ‘my lover’ was a eye/ear opener, thank Allah my mother wasn’t there, the shock would have killed her.

On the Supreme Court case and subsequent discussions.

Firstly, as @Cyclefree has persuasively argued, the judgement is a significant milestone in recognising sex-based rights in the UK as a distinct group. That's a good thing and the mission creep of the SNP towards self-identification changing the impact of both yours and others' sex-based rights has backfired on them.

Equally, ordinary trans people themselves deserve to be respected and included in society as their chosen gender to the extent possible while respecting areas where sex-based rights take precedent. The law recognises this with sex discrimination needing to be proportionate, and the separate protection for trans people under the equality act.

Where I'd like to strongly object to others in the previous thread was the idea that trans people should be considered to have a mental illness:

People have various beliefs that are not based in scientific fact, with all religions being the most obvious example through history.

It would be offensive for me to call all religious people mentally ill because I believe God is a social construct.

It would be equally offensive for me to call all transgender people mentally ill because I believe gender is a social construct.

We should live and let live. It was only the conflict between completing claims for women's sex-based and trans rights that made this a political issue. That has hopefully been resolved (absent new legislation). We can now let people dress how they want, call themselves what they want, have surgery as they wish, without it being a political issue to fight over for the foreseeable future in the UK.

(2/5)

Farage is moving Reform firmly to the left at the movement. With its support of nationalisation and unions.

But doesn’t it all come across a bit hollow? Why has Farage only changed his mind now?

I know the Red Wall polling was terrible for Labour but it wasn’t great for Reform either. Farage was hardly popular even apparently where Reform is doing well. To me instinctively this feels like Farage benefiting from “not Labour”. But Labour has a lot of time to turn things around.

Reform are just being Populist. Farage used to be Thatcherite and cheered the Kamikwase budget under Truss, yet now supports steel renationalisation.

It's just typical opportunism. Labour has a big problem though. Staking everything on deliverism means they have to deliver, and so far they are not doing so. Voters are not usually known for their patience.

Interesting times we live in. A coalescence of international trade is occurring before our very eyes - one which is going to include China and not include America.

The moron fodder in the US are being told to shout and scream that MAGA will MAGA (cf Brexit means Brexit). That the inferior foreigners are being brought into line and into their place - subjects of the Great America. That tariffs will bring not only manufacturing to the US but that US made goods will be global.

That the reality is so starkly opposite presents challenges. The US would need to remove Trump and publicly disown him for global former partners to trust them - and we all know that isn't about to happen.

And so we have countries seeking to understand exactly what Murica is doing. Trump then screams SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT because the Japanese are here to kiss the ring. But no ring is kissed and they depart.

A world with an isolationist America propagandising its population whilst the world gets on with business without it. Interesting times indeed.

It troubles me that the UK and US are apparently close to a trade deal. What's the point in doing any deal when we all know the US will pocket its gains and renege on its commitments?

I'd much prefer us not to make any commitments at all at this stage.

I genuinely doubt that we're anywhere close to a deal. Our government is not about to sign a "banned in the EU, allowed in the UK" deal which is what MAGA would insist on.

On Tuesday I met with a major American retailer who operates at scale in the UK. Despite their business being very US based in their outlook and philosophy, their UK buying managers are quite open that they cannot and will not look to just directly import foods from the US because "nobody buys them". They now want UKised versions made edible, something that even their "buy global" strategy has learned to accept.

There will be no trade deal where we get weevil-infested rice and Chlorinated chicken and ADHD-inducing additives rammed down our throats. Not only would that imperil any prospects we have of securing our trade with our major partner over the channel, British consumers simply won't buy that shit.

And this is what baffles and annoys America. The Greatest Country In The World. Period. So why don't people want to eat our food and buy our trucks? Why? Because they're shit, that's why.