I missed the train-vs-airplane discussion earlier.
I still love the new airship concepts (and, to be fair, they're getting funded and getting built) - somewhere between the two options, but with even better views than the train (you'll look at cruising at around 5000 feet rather than 35000 feet, and with far far larger windows).
One good element is that unlike the airplane, space is not at such a premium (it's purely and solely mass-driven, and expanding the area available doesn't add that much to the mass.
Even the economy-class concepts are pretty much business class on a plane:
And the business class equivalent is even nicer:
And, of course, far lower carbon emissions and making them pure-electric is hugely easier than doing the same for airplanes.
(I would imagine that security might well not be anywhere near as stringent for them. Hijacking an Airlander and trying to ram a building with it would not really work well. It'd bounce off)
Certainly looks interesting! Good point about the electrification too. Much less of an issue with lighter than air craft.
Part of the fun of trains though is the ground level view and arriving in a city centre.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
I am a PB Tory. You probably think I'm engaged in "sycophantic applause".
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
I didn't mean you and I don't understand any of that. I am very relaxed about this horrible woman being under threat, purely on a handing out vs taking it rule of thumb. Scum gonna scum, and good luck to them
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
My problem with your stance is it means no one can ever make up for an error. Yes, people shouldn't do a bad thing in the first place but it happens and everyone has to react to the world as it is, with imperfect people, not as we would wish it to be.
Seriously, what is she supposed to do? If she became St Francis of Assissi that would not erase her comments but I think we'd consider on balance she'd tilted the scales more in her favour. Of couse she won't become St Francis, but your approach would seem to just encourage people to behave like children since even if they did become St Francis it would mean nothing in your eyes.
When people are children aren't we supposed to encourage positive behaviours by both encouragement and discipline? Not declare them naughty children who should be condemned forever for their poor behaviour, irredeemable no matter how much they may regret their actions? How does that get them to change?
Ultimately your position seems to be that she probably doesn't mean what she said, which is definitely possible, and if she is lying she's not a very good person. But I cannot see how you are holding the high ground by presuming she doesn't mean what she said without proof, or treating it as irrelevant because she is tainted by original sin.
Without dressing it up you appear to just be saying that if someone does a bad thing no action can serve as recompense, not merely that you don't believe Rayner in this specific instance.
PS If it means I am taken advantage of sometimes by giving people a chance, I'd rather be that fool than think it impossible for someone to ever be contrite.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Your remarks would be absolutely right if we were talking about some remarks she had made at the age of let's say 20. She is 41 and deputy leader of her party.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
I am a PB Tory. You probably think I'm engaged in "sycophantic applause".
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
What do you think now?
I wanted her to make a proper apology. I didn't think she would. She did.
I think she's done the right thing and she seems to have done it very graciously.
I do applaud her for that, but I'm pretty sure I can applaud without any sycophancy to Ms Rayner.
I hope that she is getting personal support from across the House. I want her to make some Tory MP friends, or at least ones she respects and can work with. I really like it when I read @NickPalmer's appraisals of his favourite Tories that he worked with.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
I am a PB Tory. You probably think I'm engaged in "sycophantic applause".
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
Look at it this way
Person A: You are a terrible person for saying what you did Person B: You are right, I am sorry. I will try to do better Person A: You are a terrible person for saying it at all. Person B: Yes. I will do better from now on, but I am sorry for what I said. Person A: You are a terrible person for having said it! 10 years pass Person A: That person said a terrible thing 10 years ago. Person B: And I apologised for it 10 years ago. I am a different person now. Person A: ...You are a terrible person for what you said
Yes, I'm strawmanning there for comic effect. We don't know if this conversion to civility will last (the murder of Jo Cox did not lead to politicians calming their rhetoric at all). But we demand apologies for things all the damn time. We don't actually get them, 'overscripted' or not, very often. All this criticism of Rayner for making an apology is achieving is pushing people to be more forgiving of her than they even intended to be.
And it's not as though I disagree with the general position that people should not need to apologise, if they had just not done the bad thing in the first place. I was always struck by a line in the last episode of Justified, where Raylan Givens comments on a fugitive talking about the good life they are now leading, that 'Every long term fugitive I've ever run down expects me to congratulate them for not doing what no one is supposed to be doing anyhow', and there's truth to that. You didn't call someone scum today? Fine, that's the base level we expect. But saying you were wrong? That's rare, if someone means it.
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
I suggested this morning that the British should torpedo a French fishing boat, so I don’t want to be accused of resisting a hard line.
But the message of Truss’s email is sneering contempt and I don’t think it helps.
Sneering contempt is what the French deserve for how they've been acting.
If the French wanted diplomacy done in public, they shouldn't have started doing it in public yesterday. If Truss didn't say anything in public then those criticising her for speaking would criticise her for being AWOL.
To be more specific, I think Truss should just have said “I am summoning the ambassador…”
The bit about ordering her minister to do it is a bit girl’s high school and pathetic.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
You are one of - possibly the most - nakedly partisan posters on here. It’s nauseating at times.
Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?
I’m no fan of hers, and didn’t like her original comments, but it’s not clear to me what more she can do than write what is clearly a considered and thoughtful apology.
Your inability to accept it does you no credit.
What is there any doubt about, to give her the benefit of?
If she had resigned it would be possible to take her seriously. As it is she's posturing and you are falling for it
I missed the train-vs-airplane discussion earlier.
I still love the new airship concepts (and, to be fair, they're getting funded and getting built) - somewhere between the two options, but with even better views than the train (you'll look at cruising at around 5000 feet rather than 35000 feet, and with far far larger windows).
One good element is that unlike the airplane, space is not at such a premium (it's purely and solely mass-driven, and expanding the area available doesn't add that much to the mass.
Even the economy-class concepts are pretty much business class on a plane:
And the business class equivalent is even nicer:
And, of course, far lower carbon emissions and making them pure-electric is hugely easier than doing the same for airplanes.
(I would imagine that security might well not be anywhere near as stringent for them. Hijacking an Airlander and trying to ram a building with it would not really work well. It'd bounce off)
Great post, and I agree.
(But you mean aeroplanes not airplanes)
Whenever I see airships I think of the last crusade. “No ticket!”
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
I am a PB Tory. You probably think I'm engaged in "sycophantic applause".
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
I didn't mean you and I don't understand any of that. I am very relaxed about this horrible woman being under threat, purely on a handing out vs taking it rule of thumb. Scum gonna scum, and good luck to them
Christ.
If Tories are scum, could you indicate in broad terms what other hate based generalisations you are comfortable with? Are Jews careful with money, do black people have a natural sense of rhythm, do gay people have innate good taste in soft furnishings?
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
I am a PB Tory. You probably think I'm engaged in "sycophantic applause".
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
What do you think now?
I wanted her to make a proper apology. I didn't think she would. She did.
I think she's done the right thing and she seems to have done it very graciously.
I do applaud her for that, but I'm pretty sure I can applaud without any sycophancy to Ms Rayner.
I hope that she is getting personal support from across the House. I want her to make some Tory MP friends, or at least ones she respects and can work with. I really like it when I read @NickPalmer's appraisals of his favourite Tories that he worked with.
Nick really does come across well. There are lots of issues where he would have a different view to me, maybe more than we have in common but having read his posts on here I would be very comfortable voting for him for his cross party approach alone. It is a shame more politicians, including MPs, are not allowed or willing to talk as freely on platforms such as this.
If HMG had balls they would nationalise Facebook and Google.
They are vampires.
Nationalise what though? It's not like the Suez canal where Nasser could physically seize it.
It would make Track & Trace look cheap. The staff would leave — because no way are the public going to support paying people FAANG saleries, bonuses, and so on — and then you'd end up with the UK government owning a whole load of expensive and complicated infrastructure that it did not have the ability or knowledge to run. The sevices would collapse, becoming mostly worthless, and you would be left with a lot of physical assets that you would have to flog off for pennies. The people who left would simply go and start a whole load of "the next Google" type of companies.
I'm going to disagree with you on Sleeper Trains - the Night Riviera to Cornwall is very good especially if you stump the money for first class. You can be in St Ives for breakfast and that's no bad thing.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
But then you're in St Ives without a car
Does St Ives not have all you need?
It's a bit of a conundrum. Public transport in West Cornwall is much improved especially in the summer - buses get you to Lands End, Penzance, Truro, Falmouth and the like and a sturdy walk to Zennor or Gwithian is always to be recommended.
The town itself is very walkable if you don't mind some ups and downs such as Skidden Hill.
If you want to visit the more esoteric venues such as Trevaskis Farm, I agree a car is helpful.
Ooh. Esoteric? What’s at Trevaskis Farm?
You also need a car at St Ives if you want to visit THE HOUSE WHERE ALEISTER CROWLEY KILLED A WOMAN WITH MAGICK
who
Crowley was an early 20th century toff who allegedly dabbled in the dark arts, and was known as the most evil man in England (or possibly Britain, I forget).
I'm going to disagree with you on Sleeper Trains - the Night Riviera to Cornwall is very good especially if you stump the money for first class. You can be in St Ives for breakfast and that's no bad thing.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
But then you're in St Ives without a car
Does St Ives not have all you need?
It's a bit of a conundrum. Public transport in West Cornwall is much improved especially in the summer - buses get you to Lands End, Penzance, Truro, Falmouth and the like and a sturdy walk to Zennor or Gwithian is always to be recommended.
The town itself is very walkable if you don't mind some ups and downs such as Skidden Hill.
If you want to visit the more esoteric venues such as Trevaskis Farm, I agree a car is helpful.
Ooh. Esoteric? What’s at Trevaskis Farm?
You also need a car at St Ives if you want to visit THE HOUSE WHERE ALEISTER CROWLEY KILLED A WOMAN WITH MAGICK
who
Crowley was an early 20th century toff who allegedly dabbled in the dark arts, and was known as the most evil man in England (or possibly Britain, I forget).
Also An Angel Who Did Not So Much Fall as Saunter Vaguely Downwards.
Facebook changes its name to Meta in major rebrand
This is the sort of stuff (*) I dislike. 'meta' is a word with a known meaning. It has a definition. Facebook renaming itself is going to lead to them subsuming a perfectly good word - and one embedded within most webpages.
Google renaming itself 'Alphabet' was bad enough - although that was the umbrella organisation.
Still, at least Facebook has started to realise how toxic its own brand is becoming.
(*) I'd say something stronger, but I have two seven year old boys staring over my shoulder... Hi, Alastair! Hi, Robert!
I am a PB Tory. You probably think I'm engaged in "sycophantic applause".
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
Look at it this way
Person A: You are a terrible person for saying what you did Person B: You are right, I am sorry. I will try to do better Person A: You are a terrible person for saying it at all. Person B: Yes. I will do better from now on, but I am sorry for what I said. Person A: You are a terrible person for having said it! 10 years pass Person A: That person said a terrible thing 10 years ago. Person B: And I apologised for it 10 years ago. I am a different person now. Person A: ...You are a terrible person for what you said
Yes, I'm strawmanning there for comic effect. We don't know if this conversion to civility will last (the murder of Jo Cox did not lead to politicians calming their rhetoric at all). But we demand apologies for things all the damn time. We don't actually get them, 'overscripted' or not, very often. All this criticism of Rayner for making an apology is achieving is pushing people to be more forgiving of her than they even intended to be.
And it's not as though I disagree with the general position that people should not need to apologise, if they had just not done the bad thing in the first place. I was always struck by a line in the last episode of Justified, where Raylan Givens comments on a fugitive talking about the good life they are now leading, that 'Every long term fugitive I've ever run down expects me to congratulate them for not doing what no one is supposed to be doing anyhow', and there's truth to that. You didn't call someone scum today? Fine, that's the base level we expect. But saying you were wrong? That's rare, if someone means it.
I don't think they have to even mean it at first. I think it's something they say to recovering addicts - you've got to fake it to make it.
If her 'written by somebody else fake apology' (I don't care whether that's true or not) makes her act more congenially, and she gets the benefit of deserved respect from people for it, then it might actually make her a more congenial person in politics.
Who wouldn't applaud that?
Of course, Rayner has only published an apology on social media. We have yet to see if her actions live up to her words, so the jury is certainly still out. But her stated intent must be given credit.
I'm going to disagree with you on Sleeper Trains - the Night Riviera to Cornwall is very good especially if you stump the money for first class. You can be in St Ives for breakfast and that's no bad thing.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
But then you're in St Ives without a car
Does St Ives not have all you need?
It's a bit of a conundrum. Public transport in West Cornwall is much improved especially in the summer - buses get you to Lands End, Penzance, Truro, Falmouth and the like and a sturdy walk to Zennor or Gwithian is always to be recommended.
The town itself is very walkable if you don't mind some ups and downs such as Skidden Hill.
If you want to visit the more esoteric venues such as Trevaskis Farm, I agree a car is helpful.
Ooh. Esoteric? What’s at Trevaskis Farm?
You also need a car at St Ives if you want to visit THE HOUSE WHERE ALEISTER CROWLEY KILLED A WOMAN WITH MAGICK
As trumpeted by several who want to make a point about vaccination. However if you are vaccinated you are (a) less likely to be positive and (b) infectious for a shorter time period. And lastly, the chief effect of the vaccines has been to reduce severe disease and death, and they have been hugely successful at that.
I missed the train-vs-airplane discussion earlier.
I still love the new airship concepts (and, to be fair, they're getting funded and getting built) - somewhere between the two options, but with even better views than the train (you'll look at cruising at around 5000 feet rather than 35000 feet, and with far far larger windows).
One good element is that unlike the airplane, space is not at such a premium (it's purely and solely mass-driven, and expanding the area available doesn't add that much to the mass.
Even the economy-class concepts are pretty much business class on a plane:
And the business class equivalent is even nicer:
And, of course, far lower carbon emissions and making them pure-electric is hugely easier than doing the same for airplanes.
(I would imagine that security might well not be anywhere near as stringent for them. Hijacking an Airlander and trying to ram a building with it would not really work well. It'd bounce off)
Certainly looks interesting! Good point about the electrification too. Much less of an issue with lighter than air craft.
Part of the fun of trains though is the ground level view and arriving in a city centre.
OT: Did the Hindenburg have cabins on the transatlantic run?
You also need a car at St Ives if you want to visit THE HOUSE WHERE ALEISTER CROWLEY KILLED A WOMAN WITH MAGICK
Trevaskis Farm is linked to a Conservative MP - that's not what makes it esoteric and that may not be the best word but the food - wonderful.
I did reference the "sturdy walk to Zennor" - a detour off that and if you head in the direction of Zennor Quoit, you should see the abandoned cottage on top of a small tor - I can't remember if it's visible from the coast road but it can be found on the walk with a good map or some local knowledge.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
I am a PB Tory. You probably think I'm engaged in "sycophantic applause".
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
I didn't mean you and I don't understand any of that. I am very relaxed about this horrible woman being under threat, purely on a handing out vs taking it rule of thumb. Scum gonna scum, and good luck to them
Christ.
If Tories are scum, could you indicate in broad terms what other hate based generalisations you are comfortable with? Are Jews careful with money, do black people have a natural sense of rhythm, do gay people have innate good taste in soft furnishings?
I’m not defending what she originally said, idiot. Never have. And give over advancing the horrible stereotypes.
My response was to your saying you were “very relaxed about this woman being under threat”. What the fuck is wrong with you?
The case for vaccine passports really isn’t very strong.
Depends what the intention is. Really they are not about protecting people in nightclubs and at the footy. They are a pressure on the unvaxxed to get the jab, as seen in many other countries.
As trumpeted by several who want to make a point about vaccination. However if you are vaccinated you are (a) less likely to be positive and (b) infectious for a shorter time period. And lastly, the chief effect of the vaccines has been to reduce severe disease and death, and they have been hugely successful at that.
If it is 25% transmission vaccinated vs 38% transmission unvaccinated that suggests it reduces the risk of transmission by a third. On top of that you are less likely to catch it so less likely to transmit it beyond that stat. Also previous studies have shown viral load matters so if vaccination reduces that too, then within the 38% there may well be a higher proportion of serious cases than within the 25%.
The hypocrisy of some on here is incredible. Only too ready to slag off Boris with some pretty revolting comments ..eg Rottenborough ...where are you..?? yet the ghastly person in her political.persona that is Angela Rayner somehow needs protecting.. pass the sick bag. (I have no idea what she is like when she is not foaming at the mouth politically.)
I sat across from Ed Balls et Famille on the ECML one time when he was Shad Chan.
At Inverness Airport I noticed that Viscount Thurso MP's sunglasses had dropped out of his pocket and on to the floor. He was grateful to me for pointing that out.
Beat that.
I was once very excited to find a load of luggage trollies at St Pancras Station (pre Eurostar) with pound coins still in them, and gleefully harvested the cash until my (then) girlfriend pointed out that Tony Benn was sat on the concourse giving me a very disapproving look. I formed a low opinion of Senator John Kerry who failed to hide his impatience as our 4 year old daughter was a bit slow going through security in front of him. I had a chat and got a selfie with Tony Blair on the Eurostar. I saw Posh Spice waiting for her twenty gucci suitcases in the arrivals hall at Grantley Adams International Airport in Barbados. And I once saw Jarvis Cocker in the gents toilet at Watford Gap services.
I stood behind Catherine McKinnell MP in a queue for street food at the Tynemouth food festival a few years back.
About 40 years ago I was driving up The Mall and stopped at a red light. David Steel crossed in front of me. Suddenly he was surrounded by a party of excited schoolgirls. The lights turned green and I drove gloomily on. Lucky devil, I thought.
I met Vincent Hanna in the bar on a train once.
I also spoke to Jeremy Paxman when he attended with his daughter at a parents evening a few years ago.
Kramer from Seinfeld (Michael Richards) is a dad at my kid's school. Sadly he's nothing like his character
I’ve just learnt that Zoe and Joe Sugg are cousins…
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
My problem with your stance is it means no one can ever make up for an error. Yes, people shouldn't do a bad thing in the first place but it happens and everyone has to react to the world as it is, with imperfect people, not as we would wish it to be.
Seriously, what is she supposed to do? If she became St Francis of Assissi that would not erase her comments but I think we'd consider on balance she'd tilted the scales more in her favour. Of couse she won't become St Francis, but your approach would seem to just encourage people to behave like children since even if they did become St Francis it would mean nothing in your eyes.
When people are children aren't we supposed to encourage positive behaviours by both encouragement and discipline? Not declare them naughty children who should be condemned forever for their poor behaviour, irredeemable no matter how much they may regret their actions? How does that get them to change?
Ultimately your position seems to be that she probably doesn't mean what she said, which is definitely possible, and if she is lying she's not a very good person. But I cannot see how you are holding the high ground by presuming she doesn't mean what she said without proof, or treating it as irrelevant because she is tainted by original sin.
Without dressing it up you appear to just be saying that if someone does a bad thing no action can serve as recompense, not merely that you don't believe Rayner in this specific instance.
PS If it means I am taken advantage of sometimes by giving people a chance, I'd rather be that fool than think it impossible for someone to ever be contrite.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Your remarks would be absolutely right if we were talking about some remarks she had made at the age of let's say 20. She is 41 and deputy leader of her party.
You are completely right about this. But despite the outpouring amongst the PB intelligensia I doubt people more widely will be taken in by her apology. She was playing a very foolish game and eventually came to realise her mistake. In narrow political terms she can be given some credit, but the whole episode reflects poorly on her and her judgment.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
You are one of - possibly the most - nakedly partisan posters on here. It’s nauseating at times.
Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?
I’m no fan of hers, and didn’t like her original comments, but it’s not clear to me what more she can do than write what is clearly a considered and thoughtful apology.
Your inability to accept it does you no credit.
I have to say I didn't care less about her original comment or her apology. She always struck me as indistinguishable from Laura Pidcock and Rebecca Long Bailey. The big mystery was always how any of the three of them got past a Labour selection committee
Comments
Part of the fun of trains though is the ground level view and arriving in a city centre.
I think she's done the right thing and she seems to have done it very graciously.
I do applaud her for that, but I'm pretty sure I can applaud without any sycophancy to Ms Rayner.
I hope that she is getting personal support from across the House. I want her to make some Tory MP friends, or at least ones she respects and can work with. I really like it when I read @NickPalmer's appraisals of his favourite Tories that he worked with.
Definition of meta
(Entry 1 of 3)
1 informal : showing or suggesting an explicit awareness of itself or oneself as a member of its category : cleverly self-referential
Yeah, right
Yes, the abuse she has received is bad and worthy of reporting, but her apology is a much bigger deal in my opinion.
Person A: You are a terrible person for saying what you did
Person B: You are right, I am sorry. I will try to do better
Person A: You are a terrible person for saying it at all.
Person B: Yes. I will do better from now on, but I am sorry for what I said.
Person A: You are a terrible person for having said it!
10 years pass
Person A: That person said a terrible thing 10 years ago.
Person B: And I apologised for it 10 years ago. I am a different person now.
Person A: ...You are a terrible person for what you said
Yes, I'm strawmanning there for comic effect. We don't know if this conversion to civility will last (the murder of Jo Cox did not lead to politicians calming their rhetoric at all). But we demand apologies for things all the damn time. We don't actually get them, 'overscripted' or not, very often. All this criticism of Rayner for making an apology is achieving is pushing people to be more forgiving of her than they even intended to be.
And it's not as though I disagree with the general position that people should not need to apologise, if they had just not done the bad thing in the first place. I was always struck by a line in the last episode of Justified, where Raylan Givens comments on a fugitive talking about the good life they are now leading, that 'Every long term fugitive I've ever run down expects me to congratulate them for not doing what no one is supposed to be doing anyhow', and there's truth to that. You didn't call someone scum today? Fine, that's the base level we expect. But saying you were wrong? That's rare, if someone means it.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1453809758616567809
If her 'written by somebody else fake apology' (I don't care whether that's true or not) makes her act more congenially, and she gets the benefit of deserved respect from people for it, then it might actually make her a more congenial person in politics.
Who wouldn't applaud that?
Of course, Rayner has only published an apology on social media. We have yet to see if her actions live up to her words, so the jury is certainly still out. But her stated intent must be given credit.
Plus some phallic imagery in place of the logo.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9068491/Photos-cottage-Satanist-Aleister-Crowley-house-scrawled-wall.html
And lastly, the chief effect of the vaccines has been to reduce severe disease and death, and they have been hugely successful at that.
I did reference the "sturdy walk to Zennor" - a detour off that and if you head in the direction of Zennor Quoit, you should see the abandoned cottage on top of a small tor - I can't remember if it's visible from the coast road but it can be found on the walk with a good map or some local knowledge.
My response was to your saying you were “very relaxed about this woman being under threat”. What the fuck is wrong with you?
failed to apologise satisfactorily.
NEW THREAD