Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
We'll have to wait and see, but I think it was more Islam than Instagram in this case. And I am afraid that even in the saddest circumstances we have to remain vigilant when politicians start demanding penalties for being rude about politicians. Especially utter creeps like Francois.
You clearly have not listened to his tribute
Certainly not.
The tribute was welcomed across the house with Ian Blackford saying it is the first time he has agreed with everything he said
You could maybe listen to it and reflect
Sorry, would rather put my eyes out with a rusty nail.
Excellent General. Seriously ordinary Secretary of State. His evidence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at the UN was totally embarrassing. I started off wanting to believe it and ended up nothing short of incredulous.
Edit, on reflection that could have been better phrased but the evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the UN was on a par with that they had such weapons in Iraq itself.
Nonetheless he played a pivotal role in liberating Kuwait and also getting rid of Saddam so Iraq is now a free and democratic state, certainly compared to most of the Middle East
Yes, his general ship in the first Gulf war was simply outstanding. He had overwhelming force of course but he used it to great effect to achieve total victory with the absolute minimum of casualties. I have always thought that there was an indirect causal connection between the complete massacre of Soviet era equipment in that war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. It laid bare the idea that the Russians were even close to matching NATO's power was a complete joke. It became obvious that the 1st Armoured division's firepower was such that it could have marched on Moscow. But it was deployed to great effect.
The Soviets knew the game was up when it came to contesting US military technology way before that. They sent Marshal Kutakhov to Syria after the Beqaa Valley Turkey Shoot in 1982 and his findings indicated an unbridgeable gap.
Sure, but the Republican Guard being wiped out with several hundred tanks and armoured vehicles destroyed when the 1st Armoured had 4 casualties in the war (blue on blue IIRC) showed this was not just a gap but a chasm.
Genuine question, where was the Soviet Union falling short of the USA, by the 1980's?
Off the top of my head, I'd say C3 by the 80s, and battlefield integration by the 90s
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Freedom to send an anonymous tweet hoping that someone burns to death in a car and you will be able to watch the person melt? That freedom?
I trained as a computer scientist. The idea of the freedom of the Internet as articulated by say Perry Barlow sounded fantastic in 1990s.
Unfortunately it has met the reality of a significant chunk of human nature.
The non sequitur in your second paragraph is so good it should be set to music.
Sadly, freedom of speech means actual freedom of actual speech, including a lot of speech which you or I might find repugnant. Your example is a poor one though, as it is virtually certainly illegal under current laws.
Not my example to be honest. It was the one used by Francois. Sent to a female MP.
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
We'll have to wait and see, but I think it was more Islam than Instagram in this case. And I am afraid that even in the saddest circumstances we have to remain vigilant when politicians start demanding penalties for being rude about politicians. Especially utter creeps like Francois.
You clearly have not listened to his tribute
Certainly not.
The tribute was welcomed across the house with Ian Blackford saying it is the first time he has agreed with everything he said
You could maybe listen to it and reflect
Sorry, would rather put my eyes out with a rusty nail.
Today in the HOC has from across all sides been about intolerance
One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.
Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.
Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.
The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.
If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.
Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.
It's argued that H. sapiens ability to work together in reasonably large groups was a significant part of the reason for it's success vis-a-vis the Neanderthals, Denisovians etc.
Absolutely and 67 million people is a reasonably large group to be working with. Its possibly too large still.
Is 1450 million people in China too large for them?
Yes.
There's a reason China lacks democracy and there's a reason that the average salary in Taiwan is considerably better than the average in China.
Is 333 million people in the US too large for them?
Diversity, not size, is America's problem. Identity politics is a zero sum game. That's why it's close to being ungovernable.
(Of course diversity is also a huge strength, as a quick glance at any list of Silicon Valley CEO names will show).
I like Morgan Freeman's suggestion that we stop talking about it.
If we didn't endlessly talk about what race, sex, sexuality and gender everyone was - categorising and judging them accordingly - we might find out we had rather a lot in common.
Judging people by their race is racism. It should never be acceptable.
If racism exists it should be called out and opposed, so gestures like kneeling against intolerance are a good thing.
But to be racist yourself in reply is a very bad thing. You don't fix racism, by being racist yourself.
It's an interesting debate. Positive discrimination, for example, might have the ability to kickstart a process which otherwise would take a far longer time to address.
Not enough black people in the workforce or as CEOs? Then positive discrimination would redress that balance at the expense of, what? "The best candidate for the job"? Perhaps. But as with, ahem, Brexit, a transition period would mean that there are costs which are justified for the longer term overall benefit.
And I of course put "best candidate for the job" in quotation marks because it is far from clear that the best candidate for the job wouldn't be picked.
Kickstart what process?
I don't think an artificial, unjustified "balance" helps anyone. Hiring someone as your "token" minority individual doesn't really do either them, their "community" or your team any favours. Nor does it deal with any impediments of racism that made such an imbalance happen - and it creates a backlash that potentially makes such impediments worse not better.
Lets say you have an impediment stopping black people working in your team and want to address that. If you find out what impediments were stopping you from getting the good black applicants through then great, job done. But if you're not doing that then unless you suddenly have a way to eg find the best black person (in which case why aren't you hiring them in the first place?) if you're just hiring to meet "quota" requirements then you're going to overlook the best black person and potentially hire a dud because you overlooked the star that you were supposed to hire because you were too busy worrying about quotas rather than looking at the individuals involved.
That "positive discrimination" doesn't help the star that you should have hired but still hasn't been, and it doesn't help your team.
Positive discrimination is clearly a controversial and emotive issue. I'm not arguing it is necessarily the right thing to do. I think it may be the right thing to do in certain contexts.
Change takes time. The top people need experience, but racism has meant that non-white people haven't been able to get those experiences and so a non-racist selection for the top jobs still inherits past racism. The process to fix that is slow without positive discrimination. If a typical career takes 40 years, it might take 40 years of non-racist practice before you see a representative workforce. That's why some kickstarting may be valuable in some situations.
What if one of the impediments of racism is that people see a line-up at the top that is predominantly white and either perpetuate that racism by thinking that is how things should be, or don't see opportunities for themselves and go elsewhere? How do you fix that impediment? Positive discrimination may do that.
Why should positive discrimination mean you hire a dud? You can still apply all your other usual hiring decision making. You're just giving an additional leg-up to non-white candidates. If decision makers are so flustered by "worrying about quotas" that they don't look at the individuals involved, then they're hardly competent to be on hiring panels!
You do it through mentoring, coaching and outreach programmes, doing a lot of listening, challenging yourself to expand your personal social networks, and working to resolve unintended blockers at every level in the organisation.
Positive discrimination is not only lazy and counterproductive, through its ability to both patronise and deal injustice to real individuals by design, but also doesn't address the problem: it's cosmetic and plasters over the cracks.
It gives the company or organisation a PR defence, rather than addressing the real obstacles, and leaves resentment in its wake.
Does anyone have an other suggestions as to why SKS is stripped of the "Sir" other than-
#BBCBias
His personal preference not to use his title?
But he is unequivocal about the discomfort caused by his knighthood. There is no mention of “Sir Keir” in his campaign literature.
“I’ve never liked titles,” he said. “When I was DPP, everyone called me director and I said, ‘Please don’t call me director, call me Keir Starmer.’ It’s a very similar battle now.”
(Panel solicitor for an estate agent I am using to sell a property has just gone bust .... argh. Sorting out a replacement.)
There are quite serious questions over attempting to ban internet anonymity for people who might be under threat if decloaked - it needs really careful consideration.
An example is people who's former partner might pose a threat. Another is activists against authoritarian regimes. Here in the early days of blogging in this country a number of people were sacked from their jobs simply for the act of writing about their work - under spurious use of various unacceptable contract clauses. Local authorities were particularly prone to doing it.
And in criminal cases tracing anonymous accounts can usually be done by the authorities.
We already have a large amount of law in this area.
To me attempting to ban anonymity full stop is too simplistic and too easy an answer.
Two obvious examples were given earlier today
The Secret Barrister would have problems reporting things if he / she wasn't anonymous.
Likewise the Nightjack Police Blog.
In both cases removing anonymity would just result in them being silenced as it's not possible to do what they do while being publicly known.
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
Are all dogs dangerous?
The sorts of sweeping rules that some seem to be proposing would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. That is already a criticism that can be levelled at he latest online safety bill passing through Parliament.
I disagree. There's nothing saying anonymous speech is protected. You can say what you want, you just have to face the consequences if you are inciting violence.
There are already laws for that. The problem I suspect is that what you want to do is stop people being nasty to each other or saying things that you don't agree with. That is censorship and it is what countries like China do whilst making the same sort of excuses.
It's great that Southend is going to be a city; a suitable memorial to a good man.
---
Now for a joking bit: Given how long they've been trying to become a city, I bet the good burghers of Northampton are annoyed they didn't think of bumping off one of their two MPs ...
Of course Northampton holds the grim distinction of being the seat of the UK's first and only assassinated Prime Minister - Spencer Percival.
(Panel solicitor for an estate agent I am using to sell a property has just gone bust .... argh. Sorting out a replacement.)
There are quite serious questions over attempting to ban internet anonymity for people who might be under threat if decloaked - it needs really careful consideration.
An example is people who's former partner might pose a threat. Another is activists against authoritarian regimes. Here in the early days of blogging in this country a number of people were sacked from their jobs simply for the act of writing about their work - under spurious use of various unacceptable contract clauses. Local authorities were particularly prone to doing it.
And in criminal cases tracing anonymous accounts can usually be done by the authorities.
We already have a large amount of law in this area.
To me attempting to ban anonymity full stop is too simplistic and too easy an answer.
Two obvious examples were given earlier today
The Secret Barrister would have problems reporting things if he / she wasn't anonymous.
Likewise the Nightjack Police Blog.
In both cases removing anonymity would just result in them being silenced as it's not possible to do what they do while being publicly known.
And Nightjack was a very good example of a system hunting down and victimising someone who was embarrassing them with the truth.
Excellent General. Seriously ordinary Secretary of State. His evidence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at the UN was totally embarrassing. I started off wanting to believe it and ended up nothing short of incredulous.
Edit, on reflection that could have been better phrased but the evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the UN was on a par with that they had such weapons in Iraq itself.
Nonetheless he played a pivotal role in liberating Kuwait and also getting rid of Saddam so Iraq is now a free and democratic state, certainly compared to most of the Middle East
Yes, his general ship in the first Gulf war was simply outstanding. He had overwhelming force of course but he used it to great effect to achieve total victory with the absolute minimum of casualties. I have always thought that there was an indirect causal connection between the complete massacre of Soviet era equipment in that war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. It laid bare the idea that the Russians were even close to matching NATO's power was a complete joke. It became obvious that the 1st Armoured division's firepower was such that it could have marched on Moscow. But it was deployed to great effect.
The Soviets knew the game was up when it came to contesting US military technology way before that. They sent Marshal Kutakhov to Syria after the Beqaa Valley Turkey Shoot in 1982 and his findings indicated an unbridgeable gap.
Sure, but the Republican Guard being wiped out with several hundred tanks and armoured vehicles destroyed when the 1st Armoured had 4 casualties in the war (blue on blue IIRC) showed this was not just a gap but a chasm.
Genuine question, where was the Soviet Union falling short of the USA, by the 1980's?
They were not coping with the technological advances that the US in particular had made using chips and computers. When I was in the Soviet Union in 1979 their banks were still using abacuses and when we showed a headmaster of a school (it was that sort of a trip) our pocket calculators he was absolutely incredulous that such a thing was possible. He was also convinced that we were all millionaires as opposed to a poor student.
As this tech came into play the traditional advantage of sheer weight of numbers that the Soviet bloc had became less and less relevant with the result (as @Dura_Ace pointed out) in 1982 the Israeli airforce not only destroyed SAM missiles but also shot down more than 50 Syrian planes for no loss at all. In the Gulf war Russian tanks simply could not penetrate western armour, British or American so the result was a complete massacre. Those tanks were not quite as advanced as those in Europe but they were close enough to show that nothing the Soviets had could match an Abrams tank or even the UK equivalent.
As the 80s went on these gaps got bigger and bigger as Reagan built up military spending in a way that the Soviet economy could not possible match. By the end of the 80s it just wasn't a contest anymore.
Banging my head against a brick wall with bet365's customer service team. Trying to establish the settlement rules for Top Male and Top Female for Strictly. First reply was rubbish.
"This market is for the win only meaning that who you pick, either a male participant or a female participant would have to come first in order for the bet to win. This would mean that reaching the final wouldn't class the bet as a win or a loss at this stage. bets will settle on the overall winner of the competition".
Second reply, from a different agent, is clearer but still rubbish.
"If a male participant goes on to win Strictly Come Dancing, then there would be no Top Woman and bets on this market would be settled as a loss".
Think there could be some value around but just want confirmation on rules but these guys are clueless. If the bets settle on the overall winner there is no need for top male or top female markets with much shorter prices than the outright FFS.
The obvious way to settle it is the winner win one category. Based on historical format there is no specific runner up so you would have 2-3 contestants joint 2nd. If there is only one of the opposite gender to the winner they win the other category, if their are more than one it is a dead heat.
If all the finalists are the same gender then the last person eliminated of the opposite gender wins their category.
That is exactly my interpretation and I'm just asking them to confirm it for me. No luck so far.
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
We'll have to wait and see, but I think it was more Islam than Instagram in this case. And I am afraid that even in the saddest circumstances we have to remain vigilant when politicians start demanding penalties for being rude about politicians. Especially utter creeps like Francois.
You clearly have not listened to his tribute
Certainly not.
The tribute was welcomed across the house with Ian Blackford saying it is the first time he has agreed with everything he said
You could maybe listen to it and reflect
Sorry, would rather put my eyes out with a rusty nail.
Today in the HOC has from across all sides been about intolerance
Excellent General. Seriously ordinary Secretary of State. His evidence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at the UN was totally embarrassing. I started off wanting to believe it and ended up nothing short of incredulous.
Edit, on reflection that could have been better phrased but the evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the UN was on a par with that they had such weapons in Iraq itself.
Nonetheless he played a pivotal role in liberating Kuwait and also getting rid of Saddam so Iraq is now a free and democratic state, certainly compared to most of the Middle East
Yes, his general ship in the first Gulf war was simply outstanding. He had overwhelming force of course but he used it to great effect to achieve total victory with the absolute minimum of casualties. I have always thought that there was an indirect causal connection between the complete massacre of Soviet era equipment in that war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. It laid bare the idea that the Russians were even close to matching NATO's power was a complete joke. It became obvious that the 1st Armoured division's firepower was such that it could have marched on Moscow. But it was deployed to great effect.
The Soviets knew the game was up when it came to contesting US military technology way before that. They sent Marshal Kutakhov to Syria after the Beqaa Valley Turkey Shoot in 1982 and his findings indicated an unbridgeable gap.
Sure, but the Republican Guard being wiped out with several hundred tanks and armoured vehicles destroyed when the 1st Armoured had 4 casualties in the war (blue on blue IIRC) showed this was not just a gap but a chasm.
Genuine question, where was the Soviet Union falling short of the USA, by the 1980's?
They were not coping with the technological advances that the US in particular had made using chips and computers. When I was in the Soviet Union in 1979 their banks were still using abacuses and when we showed a headmaster of a school (it was that sort of a trip) our pocket calculators he was absolutely incredulous that such a thing was possible. He was also convinced that we were all millionaires as opposed to a poor student.
As this tech came into play the traditional advantage of sheer weight of numbers that the Soviet bloc had became less and less relevant with the result (as @Dura_Ace pointed out) in 1982 the Israeli airforce not only destroyed SAM missiles but also shot down more than 50 Syrian planes for no loss at all. In the Gulf war Russian tanks simply could not penetrate western armour, British or American so the result was a complete massacre. Those tanks were not quite as advanced as those in Europe but they were close enough to show that nothing the Soviets had could match an Abrams tank or even the UK equivalent.
As the 80s went on these gaps got bigger and bigger as Reagan built up military spending in a way that the Soviet economy could not possible match. By the end of the 80s it just wasn't a contest anymore.
Many thanks. I'm surprised they had fallen so far behind, technologically.
All well and good but tightening our monitoring of potential jihadis and their internet use and travel plans would be more appropriate I would have thought given who the killer was
Serious point of order HY. "Suspect".
I don't think there is any doubt it.
That's one way of avoiding jury service I suppose.
Safe in the knowledge I won't be selected. Still, it would be one hell of a defence counsel that got him off this one.
"Good people of the jury, this is all a terrible coincidence. Sure, my client may have written at length about wishing to execute British politicians. And yes, he was found at the crime scene holding the murder weapon and covered in blood. But these were the actions of a concerned citizen who just happened to be passing."
(Panel solicitor for an estate agent I am using to sell a property has just gone bust .... argh. Sorting out a replacement.)
There are quite serious questions over attempting to ban internet anonymity for people who might be under threat if decloaked - it needs really careful consideration.
An example is people who's former partner might pose a threat. Another is activists against authoritarian regimes. Here in the early days of blogging in this country a number of people were sacked from their jobs simply for the act of writing about their work - under spurious use of various unacceptable contract clauses. Local authorities were particularly prone to doing it.
And in criminal cases tracing anonymous accounts can usually be done by the authorities.
We already have a large amount of law in this area.
To me attempting to ban anonymity full stop is too simplistic and too easy an answer.
Two obvious examples were given earlier today
The Secret Barrister would have problems reporting things if he / she wasn't anonymous.
Likewise the Nightjack Police Blog.
In both cases removing anonymity would just result in them being silenced as it's not possible to do what they do while being publicly known.
My participation on PB above the line would be in doubt due to the terms of my new contract of employment if I had to stop using my nom de plume.
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
And we already have practise and law around "credible / non-credible threats".
Remember the "twitter joke trial", where an initial conviction was overturned on appeal after work by the likes of David Allen Green.
On 6 January 2010, an intending traveller, Paul Chambers, then aged 26, who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend (later wife), posted a message on Twitter:
A week later, an off-duty manager at the airport found the message while doing an unrelated computer search. The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat, but contacted the police anyway. Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003".
On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. As a consequence he lost his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company.
..
The approved judgement concluded that "a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]". Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was "allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character".
Does anyone have an other suggestions as to why SKS is stripped of the "Sir" other than-
#BBCBias
But he is unequivocal about the discomfort caused by his knighthood. There is no mention of “Sir Keir” in his campaign literature.
“I’ve never liked titles,” he said. “When I was DPP, everyone called me director and I said, ‘Please don’t call me director, call me Keir Starmer.’ It’s a very similar battle now.”
All well and good but tightening our monitoring of potential jihadis and their internet use and travel plans would be more appropriate I would have thought given who the killer was
Serious point of order HY. "Suspect".
I don't think there is any doubt it.
That's one way of avoiding jury service I suppose.
Safe in the knowledge I won't be selected. Still, it would be one hell of a defence counsel that got him off this one.
Jason Bartfeld QC is the best defence counsel in the business.
A Saudi millionaire has been cleared of raping a teenager after claiming he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the young woman as she slept off a night of drinking on the sofa in his plush flat in Maida Vale, west London.
He had already had sex with her 24-year-old friend and said he might have fallen on top of the teenager while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear.
Married father-of-one Mr Abdulaziz was cleared of one count of rape following a trial at Southwark Crown Court.
All well and good but tightening our monitoring of potential jihadis and their internet use and travel plans would be more appropriate I would have thought given who the killer was
Serious point of order HY. "Suspect".
I don't think there is any doubt it.
That's one way of avoiding jury service I suppose.
Safe in the knowledge I won't be selected. Still, it would be one hell of a defence counsel that got him off this one.
"Good people of the jury, this is all a terrible coincidence. Sure, my client may have written at length about wishing to execute British politicians. And yes, he was found at the crime scene holding the murder weapon and covered in blood. But these were the actions of a concerned citizen who just happened to be passing."
MODS
Before we know it you'll be speculating as to whether there's anything specific that ************* would greatly prefer were not referred to on twitter.
All well and good but tightening our monitoring of potential jihadis and their internet use and travel plans would be more appropriate I would have thought given who the killer was
Serious point of order HY. "Suspect".
I don't think there is any doubt it.
That's one way of avoiding jury service I suppose.
Safe in the knowledge I won't be selected. Still, it would be one hell of a defence counsel that got him off this one.
"Good people of the jury, this is all a terrible coincidence. Sure, my client may have written at length about wishing to execute British politicians. And yes, he was found at the crime scene holding the murder weapon and covered in blood. But these were the actions of a concerned citizen who just happened to be passing."
Cochran ...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Gerald Broflovski - Damn it! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense! Cochran - Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.
Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.
Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.
The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.
If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.
Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.
It's argued that H. sapiens ability to work together in reasonably large groups was a significant part of the reason for it's success vis-a-vis the Neanderthals, Denisovians etc.
Absolutely and 67 million people is a reasonably large group to be working with. Its possibly too large still.
Is 1450 million people in China too large for them?
Yes.
There's a reason China lacks democracy and there's a reason that the average salary in Taiwan is considerably better than the average in China.
Is 333 million people in the US too large for them?
Diversity, not size, is America's problem. Identity politics is a zero sum game. That's why it's close to being ungovernable.
(Of course diversity is also a huge strength, as a quick glance at any list of Silicon Valley CEO names will show).
I like Morgan Freeman's suggestion that we stop talking about it.
If we didn't endlessly talk about what race, sex, sexuality and gender everyone was - categorising and judging them accordingly - we might find out we had rather a lot in common.
Judging people by their race is racism. It should never be acceptable.
If racism exists it should be called out and opposed, so gestures like kneeling against intolerance are a good thing.
But to be racist yourself in reply is a very bad thing. You don't fix racism, by being racist yourself.
It's an interesting debate. Positive discrimination, for example, might have the ability to kickstart a process which otherwise would take a far longer time to address.
Not enough black people in the workforce or as CEOs? Then positive discrimination would redress that balance at the expense of, what? "The best candidate for the job"? Perhaps. But as with, ahem, Brexit, a transition period would mean that there are costs which are justified for the longer term overall benefit.
And I of course put "best candidate for the job" in quotation marks because it is far from clear that the best candidate for the job wouldn't be picked.
Kickstart what process?
I don't think an artificial, unjustified "balance" helps anyone. Hiring someone as your "token" minority individual doesn't really do either them, their "community" or your team any favours. Nor does it deal with any impediments of racism that made such an imbalance happen - and it creates a backlash that potentially makes such impediments worse not better.
Lets say you have an impediment stopping black people working in your team and want to address that. If you find out what impediments were stopping you from getting the good black applicants through then great, job done. But if you're not doing that then unless you suddenly have a way to eg find the best black person (in which case why aren't you hiring them in the first place?) if you're just hiring to meet "quota" requirements then you're going to overlook the best black person and potentially hire a dud because you overlooked the star that you were supposed to hire because you were too busy worrying about quotas rather than looking at the individuals involved.
That "positive discrimination" doesn't help the star that you should have hired but still hasn't been, and it doesn't help your team.
Positive discrimination is clearly a controversial and emotive issue. I'm not arguing it is necessarily the right thing to do. I think it may be the right thing to do in certain contexts.
Change takes time. The top people need experience, but racism has meant that non-white people haven't been able to get those experiences and so a non-racist selection for the top jobs still inherits past racism. The process to fix that is slow without positive discrimination. If a typical career takes 40 years, it might take 40 years of non-racist practice before you see a representative workforce. That's why some kickstarting may be valuable in some situations.
What if one of the impediments of racism is that people see a line-up at the top that is predominantly white and either perpetuate that racism by thinking that is how things should be, or don't see opportunities for themselves and go elsewhere? How do you fix that impediment? Positive discrimination may do that.
Why should positive discrimination mean you hire a dud? You can still apply all your other usual hiring decision making. You're just giving an additional leg-up to non-white candidates. If decision makers are so flustered by "worrying about quotas" that they don't look at the individuals involved, then they're hardly competent to be on hiring panels!
You're right that people who are "worrying about quotas" shouldn't be on the panels, but that's what happens when you start judging people about quotas. Unintended consequences and all that.
We've got minorities in positions of high power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Education Secretary etc are all from 'minorities' but I would like to think they're all in the job because [like them or not] they're the best person for the job, not because they're 'tokens'.
Furthermore for the benefit of @Nigel_Foremain who misquoted me in response too I never said that positive discrimination is a problem for "white people". I don't care about that particularly. Its bad for everyone - including minorities. If you instill an attitude of judging people by their skin colours then you're never going to move past that. That harms everyone, not just white people. It leads to conflicts and pushback of the worst sorts of people as you can see across the Pond in the USA. That conflict is repugnant and we shouldn't want to stoke it here.
It also means if you're not fighting to judge people on their merits, but on quotas etc instead, then you can harm minorities. If the best candidate for a job is a minority individual, but the 'hiring panel' is still bigoted but thinks they've 'met their quota' already then will they promote the minority individual who is the best candidate for the job? Or will they promote a dud white person because the quota is OK as it stands and they're not having to look past that?
If there's discrimination against minorities then quotas doesn't remove the discrimination. Its like trying to patch bad code, with a very badly written hack to by-pass it, while still leaving the original flaw behind. You're just piling problem onto problem, even if you mitigate a problem a bit, you aren't fixing the original flaws - you're taking the easy way out instead.
(Panel solicitor for an estate agent I am using to sell a property has just gone bust .... argh. Sorting out a replacement.)
There are quite serious questions over attempting to ban internet anonymity for people who might be under threat if decloaked - it needs really careful consideration.
An example is people who's former partner might pose a threat. Another is activists against authoritarian regimes. Here in the early days of blogging in this country a number of people were sacked from their jobs simply for the act of writing about their work - under spurious use of various unacceptable contract clauses. Local authorities were particularly prone to doing it.
And in criminal cases tracing anonymous accounts can usually be done by the authorities.
We already have a large amount of law in this area.
To me attempting to ban anonymity full stop is too simplistic and too easy an answer.
Two obvious examples were given earlier today
The Secret Barrister would have problems reporting things if he / she wasn't anonymous.
Likewise the Nightjack Police Blog.
In both cases removing anonymity would just result in them being silenced as it's not possible to do what they do while being publicly known.
And, as said, President Erdogan would be very much in favour of this initiative as well, as would all other authoritarian leaders.
It's not an easy circle to square. People horribly abuse the freedom of anonymity (it's one reason I won't ever tweet), but it's also a life-saver and help for others.
Another England innings completely stalled by Malan. Unfortunately he's a 50/50 coin that flipped 10 heads in a row at the start of his interational career in a format with so few games that it's now going to take 2 or 3 years from the end of his purple patch for the selectors to notice he's very ordinary.
Why has the BBC not got even a scorecard for this game v India on its website, nor the game listed on its fixture page, while providing audio commentary of Sri Lanka v Naimbia?
Because it's a warm-up for England, whereas Sri Lanka v Namibia is part of the actual competition
All well and good but tightening our monitoring of potential jihadis and their internet use and travel plans would be more appropriate I would have thought given who the killer was
Serious point of order HY. "Suspect".
I don't think there is any doubt it.
That's one way of avoiding jury service I suppose.
Safe in the knowledge I won't be selected. Still, it would be one hell of a defence counsel that got him off this one.
Jason Bartfeld QC is the best defence counsel in the business.
A Saudi millionaire has been cleared of raping a teenager after claiming he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the young woman as she slept off a night of drinking on the sofa in his plush flat in Maida Vale, west London.
He had already had sex with her 24-year-old friend and said he might have fallen on top of the teenager while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear.
Married father-of-one Mr Abdulaziz was cleared of one count of rape following a trial at Southwark Crown Court.
"Jason Bartfeld QC, defending, asked the defendant: 'Are you in the habit of meeting a girl for the first time at a club and then taking her back home?'"
I reckon this is equally down to Tom Ellis and Nigel Farage.
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
(Panel solicitor for an estate agent I am using to sell a property has just gone bust .... argh. Sorting out a replacement.)
There are quite serious questions over attempting to ban internet anonymity for people who might be under threat if decloaked - it needs really careful consideration.
An example is people who's former partner might pose a threat. Another is activists against authoritarian regimes. Here in the early days of blogging in this country a number of people were sacked from their jobs simply for the act of writing about their work - under spurious use of various unacceptable contract clauses. Local authorities were particularly prone to doing it.
And in criminal cases tracing anonymous accounts can usually be done by the authorities.
We already have a large amount of law in this area.
To me attempting to ban anonymity full stop is too simplistic and too easy an answer.
Two obvious examples were given earlier today
The Secret Barrister would have problems reporting things if he / she wasn't anonymous.
Likewise the Nightjack Police Blog.
In both cases removing anonymity would just result in them being silenced as it's not possible to do what they do while being publicly known.
My participation on PB above the line would be in doubt due to the terms of my new contract of employment if I had to stop using my nom de plume.
Nightjack was decloaked by The Times, when Mr Justice Eady refused an anonymity order, then disciplined by the police and forced to close down his blog.
Interesting @TSE , I have always taken a slightly different route.
I have never tried to be anonymous (real name used to be on the about page of my blog, slugged to make it un-prominent on Google) because anonymity could potentially permit threats of being exposed. But running with an identity that was consistent and looks like a real person so no one would try.
That may sound melodramatic, but at the time work was for a Local Authority contracting, when LAs were sacking people from time to time for blogging.
And I really wouldn't overlook the entire dislike of getting jabbed by a needle element. It sounds childish, but everyone's got a childish part of their brain. And will rationalise away anything they don't like.
H0W mAnY dIeD oF tHe Cl0T SHOT ?!?!?
We have a weekly 'why vaccinate teenagers# protest here in rainy Warminster. Last week they had a number for vaccine deaths in the UK - something over 1700 deaths. I loudly disputed that from my car, to which one of the protesters refused to engage and hid behind his sign, and another just said "government figures". So I looked into it. I think they are quoting the yellow card data, where people have died after receiving the vaccine and this has been noted. Now this is explicitly NOT the same as a coroner attributing death to the vaccination. Numbers for that are far smaller - in the 10 or a couple of hundred max. But I have no doubt that these protesters believe the bile and rubbish they see on the internet. Hell - the 'Conservative Woman' site, linked so often from Guido's rabble, seems to be a hot bed of anti-vax, anti-lockdown rubbish. I'm a scientist, have been for over 30 years. I have my flaws and biases, but I CAN spot hoccum data a mile off. Its obvious to me the a lot of people cannot.
Another England innings completely stalled by Malan. Unfortunately he's a 50/50 coin that flipped 10 heads in a row at the start of his interational career in a format with so few games that it's now going to take 2 or 3 years from the end of his purple patch for the selectors to notice he's very ordinary.
Why has the BBC not got even a scorecard for this game v India on its website, nor the game listed on its fixture page, while providing audio commentary of Sri Lanka v Naimbia?
Because it's a warm-up for England, whereas Sri Lanka v Namibia is part of the actual competition
It’s also taking place on the training ground next to the stadium. Not sure there’s any media watching it, except for Cricinfo’s scorer.
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
And we already have practise and law around "credible / non-credible threats".
Remember the "twitter joke trial", where an initial conviction was overturned on appeal after work by the likes of David Allen Green.
On 6 January 2010, an intending traveller, Paul Chambers, then aged 26, who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend (later wife), posted a message on Twitter:
A week later, an off-duty manager at the airport found the message while doing an unrelated computer search. The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat, but contacted the police anyway. Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003".
On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. As a consequence he lost his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company.
..
The approved judgement concluded that "a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]". Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was "allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character".
I reckon this is equally down to Tom Ellis and Nigel Farage.
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
My son's name continues its relentless pursuit of the #1 slot. It wasn't even in the top 100 when he was born - we are clearly trend setters. Although my daughters' South Asian names are unlikely to ever trouble the top ten - sadly, as they are lovely names.
All well and good but tightening our monitoring of potential jihadis and their internet use and travel plans would be more appropriate I would have thought given who the killer was
Serious point of order HY. "Suspect".
I don't think there is any doubt it.
That's one way of avoiding jury service I suppose.
Safe in the knowledge I won't be selected. Still, it would be one hell of a defence counsel that got him off this one.
Jason Bartfeld QC is the best defence counsel in the business.
A Saudi millionaire has been cleared of raping a teenager after claiming he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the young woman as she slept off a night of drinking on the sofa in his plush flat in Maida Vale, west London.
He had already had sex with her 24-year-old friend and said he might have fallen on top of the teenager while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear.
Married father-of-one Mr Abdulaziz was cleared of one count of rape following a trial at Southwark Crown Court.
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
And we already have practise and law around "credible / non-credible threats".
Remember the "twitter joke trial", where an initial conviction was overturned on appeal after work by the likes of David Allen Green.
On 6 January 2010, an intending traveller, Paul Chambers, then aged 26, who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend (later wife), posted a message on Twitter:
A week later, an off-duty manager at the airport found the message while doing an unrelated computer search. The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat, but contacted the police anyway. Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003".
On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. As a consequence he lost his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company.
..
The approved judgement concluded that "a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]". Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was "allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character".
So his defence was basically that it took the airport a few days to see his message?
If they’d picked it up immediately, he’d have been in a whole load of trouble.
IMO direct threats to named businesses or individuals should damn well be illegal, whether they’re phoned in or posted on Twitter.
That’s very different to protecting whistleblowers.
But the message says "you've got a week and a bit to get your shit together or I'm blowing the airport sky high." So a week after it was sent was defcon max.
I reckon this is equally down to Tom Ellis and Nigel Farage.
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
My son's name continues its relentless pursuit of the #1 slot. It wasn't even in the top 100 when he was born - we are clearly trend setters. Although my daughters' South Asian names are unlikely to ever trouble the top ten - sadly, as they are lovely names.
It's going to be quite *the moment* when Muhammad tops the list. Which it will do in the next ten years. It has risen inexorably for many years, it is now number five, up 2 this year
If you add in all the variant spellings then it is already number 1 by a distance, of course
Does anyone have an other suggestions as to why SKS is stripped of the "Sir" other than-
#BBCBias
But he is unequivocal about the discomfort caused by his knighthood. There is no mention of “Sir Keir” in his campaign literature.
“I’ve never liked titles,” he said. “When I was DPP, everyone called me director and I said, ‘Please don’t call me director, call me Keir Starmer.’ It’s a very similar battle now.”
If he didn't like being called Sir then why did he accept the knighthood?
I'd also like to know how many cannabis users SKS locked up and for how long for.
The Sir business is no doubt at his own request. If you watch today's debate or PMQs, the Speaker calls SKS as Keir Starmer and uses the title for other MPs.
Does anyone have an other suggestions as to why SKS is stripped of the "Sir" other than-
#BBCBias
But he is unequivocal about the discomfort caused by his knighthood. There is no mention of “Sir Keir” in his campaign literature.
“I’ve never liked titles,” he said. “When I was DPP, everyone called me director and I said, ‘Please don’t call me director, call me Keir Starmer.’ It’s a very similar battle now.”
If he didn't like being called Sir then why did he accept the knighthood?
I'd also like to know how many cannabis users SKS locked up and for how long for.
The Sir business is no doubt at his own request. If you watch today's debate or PMQs, the Speaker calls SKS as Keir Starmer and uses the title for other MPs.
The Speaker asks MPs how they wish to be addressed on the order papers. Remember when we had 18 months of “Edward Miliband”?
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
We'll have to wait and see, but I think it was more Islam than Instagram in this case. And I am afraid that even in the saddest circumstances we have to remain vigilant when politicians start demanding penalties for being rude about politicians. Especially utter creeps like Francois.
You clearly have not listened to his tribute
Certainly not.
The tribute was welcomed across the house with Ian Blackford saying it is the first time he has agreed with everything he said
You could maybe listen to it and reflect
Sorry, would rather put my eyes out with a rusty nail.
Does anyone have an other suggestions as to why SKS is stripped of the "Sir" other than-
#BBCBias
But he is unequivocal about the discomfort caused by his knighthood. There is no mention of “Sir Keir” in his campaign literature.
“I’ve never liked titles,” he said. “When I was DPP, everyone called me director and I said, ‘Please don’t call me director, call me Keir Starmer.’ It’s a very similar battle now.”
If he didn't like being called Sir then why did he accept the knighthood?
I'd also like to know how many cannabis users SKS locked up and for how long for.
The Sir business is no doubt at his own request. If you watch today's debate or PMQs, the Speaker calls SKS as Keir Starmer and uses the title for other MPs.
The most authorative answer so far so thanks for that.
I reckon this is equally down to Tom Ellis and Nigel Farage.
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
My son's name continues its relentless pursuit of the #1 slot. It wasn't even in the top 100 when he was born - we are clearly trend setters. Although my daughters' South Asian names are unlikely to ever trouble the top ten - sadly, as they are lovely names.
Do what I did with the youngest.
Called him Alistair which allowed my mum to call him Ali which cheered her right up.
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
And we already have practise and law around "credible / non-credible threats".
Remember the "twitter joke trial", where an initial conviction was overturned on appeal after work by the likes of David Allen Green.
On 6 January 2010, an intending traveller, Paul Chambers, then aged 26, who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend (later wife), posted a message on Twitter:
A week later, an off-duty manager at the airport found the message while doing an unrelated computer search. The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat, but contacted the police anyway. Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003".
On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. As a consequence he lost his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company.
..
The approved judgement concluded that "a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]". Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was "allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character".
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
They're not trying to ban being an anonymous troll, they're trying to ban being anonymous full stop. If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear, right? Utterly pathetic how quickly we're declining.
Obviously a problem here. To put anything at all online (eg commenting on PB) is to publish to an audience consisting of any number between zero and the entire planet.
In the sorts of areas PB covers, including political comment, loads of people have quite legitimate views which, because of their personal situation, job, nature of their community etc it would be inappropriate to discuss with names attached. Official neutrality in public is important for a lot of people. (Much of the civil service for example).
I don't suppose the present right of anonymity (courtesy of Mike Smithson, thank you,) will last for ever because the law will interfere, but only because it gets abused. It is not a bad thing in itself, but allows a widened discussion.
I reckon this is equally down to Tom Ellis and Nigel Farage.
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
My son's name continues its relentless pursuit of the #1 slot. It wasn't even in the top 100 when he was born - we are clearly trend setters. Although my daughters' South Asian names are unlikely to ever trouble the top ten - sadly, as they are lovely names.
Do what I did with the youngest.
Called him Alistair which allowed my mum to call him Ali which cheered her right up.
I reckon this is equally down to Tom Ellis and Nigel Farage.
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
My son's name continues its relentless pursuit of the #1 slot. It wasn't even in the top 100 when he was born - we are clearly trend setters. Although my daughters' South Asian names are unlikely to ever trouble the top ten - sadly, as they are lovely names.
Do what I did with the youngest.
Called him Alistair which allowed my mum to call him Ali which cheered her right up.
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
However you are not correct unless you qualify your quote by including figures post the 23 boundary changes which gives a seat total of 325, 1 short of a majority
I reckon this is equally down to Tom Ellis and Nigel Farage.
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
My son's name continues its relentless pursuit of the #1 slot. It wasn't even in the top 100 when he was born - we are clearly trend setters. Although my daughters' South Asian names are unlikely to ever trouble the top ten - sadly, as they are lovely names.
Do what I did with the youngest.
Called him Alistair which allowed my mum to call him Ali which cheered her right up.
#StraddlingTwoWorlds
By the same token, a non-Muslim granny can refer to her grandson Mohammed as "Mo".
My own Daddy Dearest's given name was Max; his Scots-Irish grandmother always called him "Mac" or "Mackie".
However you are not correct unless you qualify your quote by including figures post the 23 boundary changes which gives a seat total of 325, 1 short of a majority
Which still means the Tories need DUP or UUP and TUV support to get any legislation through, especially if SF take their seats to try and make Starmer PM
However you are not correct unless you qualify your quote by including figures post the 23 boundary changes which gives a seat total of 325, 1 short of a majority
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
Regarding online harms, fake news etc... There should be a big difference between freedom of speech, and the freedom to broadcast. Social media means anyone can do the latter and reach an immediate audience of billions of people, a situation that came out of nowhere over the last 15 or so years. We haven't worked out how to manage it, but we really need to.
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
And we already have practise and law around "credible / non-credible threats".
Remember the "twitter joke trial", where an initial conviction was overturned on appeal after work by the likes of David Allen Green.
On 6 January 2010, an intending traveller, Paul Chambers, then aged 26, who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend (later wife), posted a message on Twitter:
A week later, an off-duty manager at the airport found the message while doing an unrelated computer search. The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat, but contacted the police anyway. Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003".
On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. As a consequence he lost his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company.
..
The approved judgement concluded that "a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]". Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was "allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character".
So his defence was basically that it took the airport a few days to see his message?
If they’d picked it up immediately, he’d have been in a whole load of trouble.
IMO direct threats to named businesses or individuals should damn well be illegal, whether they’re phoned in or posted on Twitter.
That’s very different to protecting whistleblowers.
The problem is that a lot of humour involves saying things that are ridiculous.
Is @IshmaelZ really suggesting that he would prefer you extracted his eyeballs with a rusty nail, than to watch a short speech?
Threats need to be credible. This wasn't.
If someone posted to Twitter "political betting down. If their sysadmin doesn't get it back in the next 30 minutes, I'm going round his house with a baseball bat", I wouldn't actually be concerned.
I reckon this is equally down to Tom Ellis and Nigel Farage.
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
My son's name continues its relentless pursuit of the #1 slot. It wasn't even in the top 100 when he was born - we are clearly trend setters. Although my daughters' South Asian names are unlikely to ever trouble the top ten - sadly, as they are lovely names.
It's going to be quite *the moment* when Muhammad tops the list. Which it will do in the next ten years. It has risen inexorably for many years, it is now number five, up 2 this year
If you add in all the variant spellings then it is already number 1 by a distance, of course
To be honest, it's not quite as significant as people say.
If Muslims account for 10% of the births in the UK then ~5% will be boys and, if they call a third of those Muhammad (or variations thereof), then 1.5% of all babies will be called Muhammad. The 90% who are non-Muslim might have 200-300+ names, and so will top out at 0.3% or 0.4% at most.
Basically, there is a far far higher number of variations for babies names amongst non-Muslims (hundreds and hundreds) so it's very easy for it to top the list. However, it's very poorly distributed - it doesn't imply we're about to be greeted by a universality, like with Rimmers in Red Dwarf.
However you are not correct unless you qualify your quote by including figures post the 23 boundary changes which gives a seat total of 325, 1 short of a majority
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
We continue to drop down the league table for deaths while being fully open so I don't think you can say we've squandered the vaccine dividend. We're ahead of most countries in transitioning to treating covid as endemic.
However you are not correct unless you qualify your quote by including figures post the 23 boundary changes which gives a seat total of 325, 1 short of a majority
Which still means the Tories need DUP or UUP and TUV support to get any legislation through, especially if SF take their seats to try and make Starmer PM
I do not accept that but I assume you will quote both from now on in the interest of accuracy
However you are not correct unless you qualify your quote by including figures post the 23 boundary changes which gives a seat total of 325, 1 short of a majority
How many Lab?
Labour 244
Labour has zero chance of a majority on this poll.
However Labour + SNP +LDs +PC+Greens+ SDLP+Alliance would be on 310 seats even on the new boundaries and add in SF and that would be 317 seats combined, so Starmer would be just 9 seats off becoming PM and if he persuaded the DUP to back him, which is less likely, he could be PM
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
And we already have practise and law around "credible / non-credible threats".
Remember the "twitter joke trial", where an initial conviction was overturned on appeal after work by the likes of David Allen Green.
On 6 January 2010, an intending traveller, Paul Chambers, then aged 26, who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend (later wife), posted a message on Twitter:
A week later, an off-duty manager at the airport found the message while doing an unrelated computer search. The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat, but contacted the police anyway. Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003".
On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. As a consequence he lost his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company.
..
The approved judgement concluded that "a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]". Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was "allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character".
So his defence was basically that it took the airport a few days to see his message?
If they’d picked it up immediately, he’d have been in a whole load of trouble.
IMO direct threats to named businesses or individuals should damn well be illegal, whether they’re phoned in or posted on Twitter.
That’s very different to protecting whistleblowers.
The management did not perceive it as a threat. And the police went off at the deep end, as is their regular habit.
You need to read the case.
The point is that we have been through a lot of these questions before, without kneejerk attempts at solutions.
And God knows we have enough highly questionable laws forced through Parliament in response to emotive episodes.
There's also quite the record of people using allegations of abuse etc to silence opponents, including in local politics. It's a really difficult balance to get right.
IMO Mermaids for one use the police almost as a third party outsourced harassment service to go for journalists / bloggers.
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
We continue to drop down the league table for deaths while being fully open so I don't think you can say we've squandered the vaccine dividend. We're ahead of most countries in transitioning to treating covid as endemic.
My father's colleagues keep on looking at Israel, there's a definite vaccine waning going on around the sixth month level.
Francois calls for big toughening of social media harm laws
I suppose reducing freedom for everyone is much easier than taking action about the specific relevant factor which is a bit too embarassing for the modern Conservative party to touch.
Is there a basic fundamental right to be an anonymous troll online?
There's a case to be made for the law on littering in the countryside to be tightened up, but it would be about equally relevant to what happened to Amess.
Stopping anonymous trolls on the internet threatening violence on MPs has nothing to do with what happened? I think there is quite a significant connection between the two. Certainly more of a connection than littering.
And we already have practise and law around "credible / non-credible threats".
Remember the "twitter joke trial", where an initial conviction was overturned on appeal after work by the likes of David Allen Green.
On 6 January 2010, an intending traveller, Paul Chambers, then aged 26, who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend (later wife), posted a message on Twitter:
A week later, an off-duty manager at the airport found the message while doing an unrelated computer search. The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat, but contacted the police anyway. Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003".
On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. As a consequence he lost his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company.
..
The approved judgement concluded that "a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]". Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was "allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character".
So his defence was basically that it took the airport a few days to see his message?
If they’d picked it up immediately, he’d have been in a whole load of trouble.
IMO direct threats to named businesses or individuals should damn well be illegal, whether they’re phoned in or posted on Twitter.
That’s very different to protecting whistleblowers.
The problem is that a lot of humour involves saying things that are ridiculous.
Is @IshmaelZ really suggesting that he would prefer you extracted his eyeballs with a rusty nail, than to watch a short speech?
Threats need to be credible. This wasn't.
If someone posted to Twitter "political betting down. If their sysadmin doesn't get it back in the next 30 minutes, I'm going round his house with a baseball bat", I wouldn't actually be concerned.
"a lot of humour involves saying things that are ridiculous"
THE reason why PB is the world's funniest website!
However you are not correct unless you qualify your quote by including figures post the 23 boundary changes which gives a seat total of 325, 1 short of a majority
Which still means the Tories need DUP or UUP and TUV support to get any legislation through, especially if SF take their seats to try and make Starmer PM
SF take their seats to help out SKS? That seems a bit far fetched. But then again I guess he is a former boss at CPS so might make sense
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
We continue to drop down the league table for deaths while being fully open so I don't think you can say we've squandered the vaccine dividend. We're ahead of most countries in transitioning to treating covid as endemic.
My father's colleagues keep on looking at Israel, there's a definite vaccine waning going on around the sixth month level.
Excellent closing tribute from Rupa Huq recalling Sir David Amess with warmth and wit. They recently returned from a foreign delegation and she believes she was the last Labour MP to see him. He waited with her at the baggage reclaim.
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
We continue to drop down the league table for deaths while being fully open so I don't think you can say we've squandered the vaccine dividend. We're ahead of most countries in transitioning to treating covid as endemic.
My father's colleagues keep on looking at Israel, there's a definite vaccine waning going on around the sixth month level.
Winter is coming.
Get the boosters done then
My father is willing to do so, the government seems to be fannying around.
The lack of urgency on boosters and the failure to immunise children over the summer really are mistakes of the first order and so avoidable.
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
We continue to drop down the league table for deaths while being fully open so I don't think you can say we've squandered the vaccine dividend. We're ahead of most countries in transitioning to treating covid as endemic.
My father's colleagues keep on looking at Israel, there's a definite vaccine waning going on around the sixth month level.
Winter is coming.
We've given 3.7m booster doses in England already and if you add that to all the people receiving a natural immunity boost from being exposed to the virus, we're not going into the winter in bad shape.
Excellent closing tribute from Rupa Huq recalling Sir David Amess with warmth and wit. They recently returned from a foreign delegation and she believes she was the last Labour MP to see him. He waited with her at the baggage reclaim.
Conservative 40% (–) Labour 37% (+1) Liberal Democrat 9% (–) Green 5% (-1) Scottish National Party 4% (–) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 11 Oct
SKS enemies, please explain.
"Any other leader would be 20pts ahead"
Also 2 YEARS before the last GE we had
Survation 2017-12-01 Con 38 Lab 46
And I think Sunil will confirm LAB still managed worst result since 1935
So SKS fans please explain
I can't because I am not an "SKS" fan, but he is clearly better than Mr. Thicky.
Corbyn, in spite of taking Labour to it's worst defeat in almost 100 years is still revered by a gullible section of the population. Corbyn fans (apologists) please explain.
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
We continue to drop down the league table for deaths while being fully open so I don't think you can say we've squandered the vaccine dividend. We're ahead of most countries in transitioning to treating covid as endemic.
My father's colleagues keep on looking at Israel, there's a definite vaccine waning going on around the sixth month level.
Winter is coming.
We've given 3.7m booster doses in England already and if you add that to all the people receiving a natural immunity boost from being exposed to the virus, we're not going into the winter in bad shape.
There's immense frustration amongst those who successfully rolled out the first wave of jabs at this, we should have displayed the same urgency now as we did in January to June time.
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
We continue to drop down the league table for deaths while being fully open so I don't think you can say we've squandered the vaccine dividend. We're ahead of most countries in transitioning to treating covid as endemic.
But we could have done it more efficiently - see Scotland vs England on 12-15 jabs, and now booster jabs among the vulnerable. They appear to have lost any sense of urgency.
The government were at the top of their game during the original vaccine rollout.
They spotted things like the Asian population was 10% behind the white population on jabs so the government focussed on that and within a few months they were next to equal.
One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.
Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.
Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.
The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.
If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.
Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.
It's argued that H. sapiens ability to work together in reasonably large groups was a significant part of the reason for it's success vis-a-vis the Neanderthals, Denisovians etc.
Absolutely and 67 million people is a reasonably large group to be working with. Its possibly too large still.
Is 1450 million people in China too large for them?
Yes.
There's a reason China lacks democracy and there's a reason that the average salary in Taiwan is considerably better than the average in China.
Is 333 million people in the US too large for them?
Diversity, not size, is America's problem. Identity politics is a zero sum game. That's why it's close to being ungovernable.
(Of course diversity is also a huge strength, as a quick glance at any list of Silicon Valley CEO names will show).
I like Morgan Freeman's suggestion that we stop talking about it.
If we didn't endlessly talk about what race, sex, sexuality and gender everyone was - categorising and judging them accordingly - we might find out we had rather a lot in common.
Judging people by their race is racism. It should never be acceptable.
If racism exists it should be called out and opposed, so gestures like kneeling against intolerance are a good thing.
But to be racist yourself in reply is a very bad thing. You don't fix racism, by being racist yourself.
It's an interesting debate. Positive discrimination, for example, might have the ability to kickstart a process which otherwise would take a far longer time to address.
Not enough black people in the workforce or as CEOs? Then positive discrimination would redress that balance at the expense of, what? "The best candidate for the job"? Perhaps. But as with, ahem, Brexit, a transition period would mean that there are costs which are justified for the longer term overall benefit.
And I of course put "best candidate for the job" in quotation marks because it is far from clear that the best candidate for the job wouldn't be picked.
Kickstart what process?
I don't think an artificial, unjustified "balance" helps anyone. Hiring someone as your "token" minority individual doesn't really do either them, their "community" or your team any favours. Nor does it deal with any impediments of racism that made such an imbalance happen - and it creates a backlash that potentially makes such impediments worse not better.
Lets say you have an impediment stopping black people working in your team and want to address that. If you find out what impediments were stopping you from getting the good black applicants through then great, job done. But if you're not doing that then unless you suddenly have a way to eg find the best black person (in which case why aren't you hiring them in the first place?) if you're just hiring to meet "quota" requirements then you're going to overlook the best black person and potentially hire a dud because you overlooked the star that you were supposed to hire because you were too busy worrying about quotas rather than looking at the individuals involved.
That "positive discrimination" doesn't help the star that you should have hired but still hasn't been, and it doesn't help your team.
Positive discrimination is clearly a controversial and emotive issue. I'm not arguing it is necessarily the right thing to do. I think it may be the right thing to do in certain contexts.
Change takes time. The top people need experience, but racism has meant that non-white people haven't been able to get those experiences and so a non-racist selection for the top jobs still inherits past racism. The process to fix that is slow without positive discrimination. If a typical career takes 40 years, it might take 40 years of non-racist practice before you see a representative workforce. That's why some kickstarting may be valuable in some situations.
What if one of the impediments of racism is that people see a line-up at the top that is predominantly white and either perpetuate that racism by thinking that is how things should be, or don't see opportunities for themselves and go elsewhere? How do you fix that impediment? Positive discrimination may do that.
Why should positive discrimination mean you hire a dud? You can still apply all your other usual hiring decision making. You're just giving an additional leg-up to non-white candidates. If decision makers are so flustered by "worrying about quotas" that they don't look at the individuals involved, then they're hardly competent to be on hiring panels!
You do it through mentoring, coaching and outreach programmes, doing a lot of listening, challenging yourself to expand your personal social networks, and working to resolve unintended blockers at every level in the organisation.
Positive discrimination is not only lazy and counterproductive, through its ability to both patronise and deal injustice to real individuals by design, but also doesn't address the problem: it's cosmetic and plasters over the cracks.
It gives the company or organisation a PR defence, rather than addressing the real obstacles, and leaves resentment in its wake.
That's a lot of rhetoric with very little substance. It's clearly not an either/or situation. You should be doing everything possible to meaningfully improve hiring practices. All measures can be done in a cosmetic manner, just for the PR, and that should be avoided.
The only part of your response that might hold any weight is the question of resentment. Does positive discrimination leave resentment in its wake? I mean, maybe, but I'd be more sympathetic to the argument if we didn't see resentment from those with power to any move, however reasonable, to achieve more equality.
When it feels like every move to counter discrimination is met by a chorus of complaints that it's "woke nonsense" and "unnecessary"... well, maybe we should pandering to those who have benefitted from past discrimination? We know there is still a problem. Time and again, research shows this. If we can achieve change without positive discrimination, fantastic, but it's not like most employment sectors are doing a great job so far.
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
We continue to drop down the league table for deaths while being fully open so I don't think you can say we've squandered the vaccine dividend. We're ahead of most countries in transitioning to treating covid as endemic.
My father's colleagues keep on looking at Israel, there's a definite vaccine waning going on around the sixth month level.
Winter is coming.
Anyone have any news about the second jab for 16 - 17 year olds?
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to @john_actuary
We continue to drop down the league table for deaths while being fully open so I don't think you can say we've squandered the vaccine dividend. We're ahead of most countries in transitioning to treating covid as endemic.
But we could have done it more efficiently - see Scotland vs England on 12-15 jabs, and now booster jabs among the vulnerable. They appear to have lost any sense of urgency.
Is this due to the loss of the Vaccines Minister? He doesn't seem up to speed at Education either. Lose/lose?
Excellent closing tribute from Rupa Huq recalling Sir David Amess with warmth and wit. They recently returned from a foreign delegation and she believes she was the last Labour MP to see him. He waited with her at the baggage reclaim.
We've got minorities in positions of high power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Education Secretary etc are all from 'minorities' but I would like to think they're all in the job because [like them or not] they're the best person for the job, not because they're 'tokens'.
Furthermore for the benefit of @Nigel_Foremain who misquoted me in response too I never said that positive discrimination is a problem for "white people". I don't care about that particularly. Its bad for everyone - including minorities. If you instill an attitude of judging people by their skin colours then you're never going to move past that. That harms everyone, not just white people. It leads to conflicts and pushback of the worst sorts of people as you can see across the Pond in the USA. That conflict is repugnant and we shouldn't want to stoke it here.
It's great for the fight against racism that we have high profile people in Cabinet from minoritised groups. That hardly means that all racism has been banished from the country, however.
The conflicts and pushback in the US aren't because of positive discrimination. There has been conflict and pushback in the US to any move to counter racism. The Confederacy didn't secede because they objected to positive discrimination!
I reckon this is equally down to Tom Ellis and Nigel Farage.
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
My son's name continues its relentless pursuit of the #1 slot. It wasn't even in the top 100 when he was born - we are clearly trend setters. Although my daughters' South Asian names are unlikely to ever trouble the top ten - sadly, as they are lovely names.
It's going to be quite *the moment* when Muhammad tops the list. Which it will do in the next ten years. It has risen inexorably for many years, it is now number five, up 2 this year
If you add in all the variant spellings then it is already number 1 by a distance, of course
To be honest, it's not quite as significant as people say.
If Muslims account for 10% of the births in the UK then ~5% will be boys and, if they call a third of those Muhammad (or variations thereof), then 1.5% of all babies will be called Muhammad. The 90% who are non-Muslim might have 200-300+ names, and so will top out at 0.3% or 0.4% at most.
Basically, there is a far far higher number of variations for babies names amongst non-Muslims (hundreds and hundreds) so it's very easy for it to top the list. However, it's very poorly distributed - it doesn't imply we're about to be greeted by a universality, like with Rimmers in Red Dwarf.
Psychologically, however, it will still be quite a shock
The government were at the top of their game during the original vaccine rollout.
They spotted things like the Asian population was 10% behind the white population on jabs so the government focussed on that and within a few months they were next to equal.
Now, they'd rather focus on other things.
Yes, the government has gone very quite on vaccinations and other Covid-related matters. Looking at the recent rise in cases, hospitalisations and deaths, it smacks of complacency to me.
I reckon this is equally down to Tom Ellis and Nigel Farage.
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
My son's name continues its relentless pursuit of the #1 slot. It wasn't even in the top 100 when he was born - we are clearly trend setters. Although my daughters' South Asian names are unlikely to ever trouble the top ten - sadly, as they are lovely names.
It's going to be quite *the moment* when Muhammad tops the list. Which it will do in the next ten years. It has risen inexorably for many years, it is now number five, up 2 this year
If you add in all the variant spellings then it is already number 1 by a distance, of course
To be honest, it's not quite as significant as people say.
If Muslims account for 10% of the births in the UK then ~5% will be boys and, if they call a third of those Muhammad (or variations thereof), then 1.5% of all babies will be called Muhammad. The 90% who are non-Muslim might have 200-300+ names, and so will top out at 0.3% or 0.4% at most.
Basically, there is a far far higher number of variations for babies names amongst non-Muslims (hundreds and hundreds) so it's very easy for it to top the list. However, it's very poorly distributed - it doesn't imply we're about to be greeted by a universality, like with Rimmers in Red Dwarf.
Psychologically, however, it will still be quite a shock
Unfortunately it might give Tommy Robinson and co a boost but Casino is right, it does not mean much other than that Muhammad is a very popular name with British Muslims
Comments
@LeftieStats
· 4h
📊 Voting intention amongst 2019 Labour voters:
🔴 LAB: 77% (-23)
🟢 GRN: 11% (+11)
🟠 LD: 4% (+4)
🔵 CON: 3% (+3)
🟡 SNP: 1% (+1)
OTH: 2% (+2)
Via @YouGov, 2-30 September (+/- since 2019)
I say no more
Positive discrimination is not only lazy and counterproductive, through its ability to both patronise and deal injustice to real individuals by design, but also doesn't address the problem: it's cosmetic and plasters over the cracks.
It gives the company or organisation a PR defence, rather than addressing the real obstacles, and leaves resentment in its wake.
But he is unequivocal about the discomfort caused by his knighthood. There is no mention of “Sir Keir” in his campaign literature.
“I’ve never liked titles,” he said. “When I was DPP, everyone called me director and I said, ‘Please don’t call me director, call me Keir Starmer.’ It’s a very similar battle now.”
https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-mum-health-battles-have-inspired-3488566
The Secret Barrister would have problems reporting things if he / she wasn't anonymous.
Likewise the Nightjack Police Blog.
In both cases removing anonymity would just result in them being silenced as it's not possible to do what they do while being publicly known.
Of course Northampton holds the grim distinction of being the seat of the UK's first and only assassinated Prime Minister - Spencer Percival.
As this tech came into play the traditional advantage of sheer weight of numbers that the Soviet bloc had became less and less relevant with the result (as @Dura_Ace pointed out) in 1982 the Israeli airforce not only destroyed SAM missiles but also shot down more than 50 Syrian planes for no loss at all. In the Gulf war Russian tanks simply could not penetrate western armour, British or American so the result was a complete massacre. Those tanks were not quite as advanced as those in Europe but they were close enough to show that nothing the Soviets had could match an Abrams tank or even the UK equivalent.
As the 80s went on these gaps got bigger and bigger as Reagan built up military spending in a way that the Soviet economy could not possible match. By the end of the 80s it just wasn't a contest anymore.
Con +3 with 2019 Labour voters? Why would someone vote for Jezza in 2019 and Boris in 2021?
Remember the "twitter joke trial", where an initial conviction was overturned on appeal after work by the likes of David Allen Green.
On 6 January 2010, an intending traveller, Paul Chambers, then aged 26, who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend (later wife), posted a message on Twitter:
A week later, an off-duty manager at the airport found the message while doing an unrelated computer search. The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat, but contacted the police anyway. Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003".
On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. As a consequence he lost his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company.
..
The approved judgement concluded that "a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]". Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was "allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial
I'd also like to know how many cannabis users SKS locked up and for how long for.
A Saudi millionaire has been cleared of raping a teenager after claiming he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the young woman as she slept off a night of drinking on the sofa in his plush flat in Maida Vale, west London.
He had already had sex with her 24-year-old friend and said he might have fallen on top of the teenager while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear.
Married father-of-one Mr Abdulaziz was cleared of one count of rape following a trial at Southwark Crown Court.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3361640/Saudi-millionaire-cleared-raping-teenager-telling-court-accidentally-penetrated-18-year-old-tripped-fell-her.html
Before we know it you'll be speculating as to whether there's anything specific that ************* would greatly prefer were not referred to on twitter.
Cochran ...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Gerald Broflovski - Damn it! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense!
Cochran - Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
We've got minorities in positions of high power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Education Secretary etc are all from 'minorities' but I would like to think they're all in the job because [like them or not] they're the best person for the job, not because they're 'tokens'.
Furthermore for the benefit of @Nigel_Foremain who misquoted me in response too I never said that positive discrimination is a problem for "white people". I don't care about that particularly. Its bad for everyone - including minorities. If you instill an attitude of judging people by their skin colours then you're never going to move past that. That harms everyone, not just white people. It leads to conflicts and pushback of the worst sorts of people as you can see across the Pond in the USA. That conflict is repugnant and we shouldn't want to stoke it here.
It also means if you're not fighting to judge people on their merits, but on quotas etc instead, then you can harm minorities. If the best candidate for a job is a minority individual, but the 'hiring panel' is still bigoted but thinks they've 'met their quota' already then will they promote the minority individual who is the best candidate for the job? Or will they promote a dud white person because the quota is OK as it stands and they're not having to look past that?
If there's discrimination against minorities then quotas doesn't remove the discrimination. Its like trying to patch bad code, with a very badly written hack to by-pass it, while still leaving the original flaw behind. You're just piling problem onto problem, even if you mitigate a problem a bit, you aren't fixing the original flaws - you're taking the easy way out instead.
It's not an easy circle to square. People horribly abuse the freedom of anonymity (it's one reason I won't ever tweet), but it's also a life-saver and help for others.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1450129585400598539?t=DJNTNA52FDtt8ItQPNy4gg&s=19
"Jason Bartfeld QC, defending, asked the defendant: 'Are you in the habit of meeting a girl for the first time at a club and then taking her back home?'"
Also, is the QC aware of "Tinder"?!
Presumably no one in their right mind would call their child Beelzebub, Satan or, for the numerically inclined, 666. But more babies were named Lucifer last year than were called Nigel.
The latest statistics on babies’ names reveal that 15 babies were called Lucifer last year.
In contrast Nigel has completely dropped off the league table, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), meaning that two babies or fewer were given the name.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/what-s-in-a-name-archie-now-more-popular-than-charlie-rbqbcrnbs
Interesting @TSE , I have always taken a slightly different route.
I have never tried to be anonymous (real name used to be on the about page of my blog, slugged to make it un-prominent on Google) because anonymity could potentially permit threats of being exposed. But running with an identity that was consistent and looks like a real person so no one would try.
That may sound melodramatic, but at the time work was for a Local Authority contracting, when LAs were sacking people from time to time for blogging.
But I have no doubt that these protesters believe the bile and rubbish they see on the internet. Hell - the 'Conservative Woman' site, linked so often from Guido's rabble, seems to be a hot bed of anti-vax, anti-lockdown rubbish.
I'm a scientist, have been for over 30 years. I have my flaws and biases, but I CAN spot hoccum data a mile off. Its obvious to me the a lot of people cannot.
If they’d picked it up immediately, he’d have been in a whole load of trouble.
IMO direct threats to named businesses or individuals should damn well be illegal, whether they’re phoned in or posted on Twitter.
That’s very different to protecting whistleblowers.
@RedfieldWilton
·
14m
Westminster Voting Intention (18 Oct):
Conservative 40% (–)
Labour 37% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 9% (–)
Green 5% (-1)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 3% (-1)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 11 Oct
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REpNTi-9oRQ
If you add in all the variant spellings then it is already number 1 by a distance, of course
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=40&LAB=37&LIB=9&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=22.3&SCOTLAB=18.3&SCOTLIB=6.3&SCOTReform=0.7&SCOTGreen=0.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48.3&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
Called him Alistair which allowed my mum to call him Ali which cheered her right up.
#StraddlingTwoWorlds
You need to read the case.
The point is that we have been through a lot of these questions before, without kneejerk attempts at solutions.
And God knows we have enough highly questionable laws forced through Parliament in response to moments of high emotion.
There's also quite the record of people using allegations of abuse etc to silence opponents. It's a really difficult balance to get right.
In the sorts of areas PB covers, including political comment, loads of people have quite legitimate views which, because of their personal situation, job, nature of their community etc it would be inappropriate to discuss with names attached. Official neutrality in public is important for a lot of people. (Much of the civil service for example).
I don't suppose the present right of anonymity (courtesy of Mike Smithson, thank you,) will last for ever because the law will interfere, but only because it gets abused. It is not a bad thing in itself, but allows a widened discussion.
First UK vaccine rollout was fast, reaching most vulnerable with a one dose before every other country (bar Israel). But there are questions about speed of the booster dose rollout as we head quickly into winter. Wrote this (with thanks to
@john_actuary
https://twitter.com/jim_reed/status/1450132105648824324?s=20
However you are not correct unless you qualify your quote by including figures post the 23 boundary changes which gives a seat total of 325, 1 short of a majority
My own Daddy Dearest's given name was Max; his Scots-Irish grandmother always called him "Mac" or "Mackie".
No Archer and we're buggered on the bowling front, no control, no wickets.
We're going to need two worldie batting performances in each match to progress.
Is @IshmaelZ really suggesting that he would prefer you extracted his eyeballs with a rusty nail, than to watch a short speech?
Threats need to be credible. This wasn't.
If someone posted to Twitter "political betting down. If their sysadmin doesn't get it back in the next 30 minutes, I'm going round his house with a baseball bat", I wouldn't actually be concerned.
If Muslims account for 10% of the births in the UK then ~5% will be boys and, if they call a third of those Muhammad (or variations thereof), then 1.5% of all babies will be called Muhammad. The 90% who are non-Muslim might have 200-300+ names, and so will top out at 0.3% or 0.4% at most.
Basically, there is a far far higher number of variations for babies names amongst non-Muslims (hundreds and hundreds) so it's very easy for it to top the list. However, it's very poorly distributed - it doesn't imply we're about to be greeted by a universality, like with Rimmers in Red Dwarf.
However Labour + SNP +LDs +PC+Greens+ SDLP+Alliance would be on 310 seats even on the new boundaries and add in SF and that would be 317 seats combined, so Starmer would be just 9 seats off becoming PM and if he persuaded the DUP to back him, which is less likely, he could be PM
There's also quite the record of people using allegations of abuse etc to silence opponents, including in local politics. It's a really difficult balance to get right.
IMO Mermaids for one use the police almost as a third party outsourced harassment service to go for journalists / bloggers.
Here are two early cases:
https://www.faircop.org.uk/case-studies/kellie-jay-keen-minshull/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-47638527
Winter is coming.
THE reason why PB is the world's funniest website!
https://twitter.com/HackBlackburn/status/1450139502492766210
Also 2 YEARS before the last GE we had
Survation 2017-12-01
Con 38
Lab 46
And I think Sunil will confirm LAB still managed worst result since 1935
So SKS fans please explain
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/higgins-controversy-a-reminder-of-ambiguity-in-naming-of-state-1.4702926
The lack of urgency on boosters and the failure to immunise children over the summer really are mistakes of the first order and so avoidable.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
https://twitter.com/Ned_Donovan/status/1449671420389249027
Oct 17
The first time I met Sir David Amess I didn’t know him and asked what he did.
“I’m an MP,” he said and I apologised for not recognising him.
He smiled and replied “Don’t worry, I was watching Pointless the other day and I was a Pointless answer when they were asked to name MPs”
Corbyn, in spite of taking Labour to it's worst defeat in almost 100 years is still revered by a gullible section of the population. Corbyn fans (apologists) please explain.
Interesting.
For the sake of the GFA this needs to be dropped from the ROI's Constiution.
There's immense frustration amongst those who successfully rolled out the first wave of jabs at this, we should have displayed the same urgency now as we did in January to June time.
https://twitter.com/dhtoomey/status/1449771074036670469
They spotted things like the Asian population was 10% behind the white population on jabs so the government focussed on that and within a few months they were next to equal.
Now, they'd rather focus on other things.
The only part of your response that might hold any weight is the question of resentment. Does positive discrimination leave resentment in its wake? I mean, maybe, but I'd be more sympathetic to the argument if we didn't see resentment from those with power to any move, however reasonable, to achieve more equality.
When it feels like every move to counter discrimination is met by a chorus of complaints that it's "woke nonsense" and "unnecessary"... well, maybe we should pandering to those who have benefitted from past discrimination? We know there is still a problem. Time and again, research shows this. If we can achieve change without positive discrimination, fantastic, but it's not like most employment sectors are doing a great job so far.
@bondegezou ?
He doesn't seem up to speed at Education either.
Lose/lose?
The conflicts and pushback in the US aren't because of positive discrimination. There has been conflict and pushback in the US to any move to counter racism. The Confederacy didn't secede because they objected to positive discrimination!