Just to be clear - I was kidding. A "dislike" button is world's WORST idea.
It’s already been tried & tested - James Kelly used to dislike every post Plato (RIP) made!
Plato was an interesting person, from Blairite Labour voter in the 90s and 00s to hard right conspiracy theorist before she passed away. Quite the journey.
Foodyism is just another way to spit in the face of the poor.
Ha ha you're poor - if only you learnt how to Cook you would be eating much better.
I can't cook a fucking thing and have no interest in learning but I utterly despise soi disant car enthusiasts who own adjustable spanners and don't corner balance their cars.
We all have our priorities.
Agreed re priorities. I did have cooking lessons at school, but thought the process was often unpleasant (making jam rolls by smearing the jam on with your fingers, yuck) and the results uninviting. I think Leon's "basic 12" would suffer from the same problem. You need to want to eat the result for motivation, and the school's ideas of what you'd fancy is unlikely to happen to match yours. Indeed, like compulsory Dickens, it would tend to put you off them.
To be positive, a couple of years ago I suddenly thought I'd quite like an omelette, so I asked a friend and I now enjoy knocking them off with a minute's work (actually FASTER than a ready meal, gosh), but as with the joke about how many psychiatrists are needed to change a lightbulb - "Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change"), you need to want it. Cyclefree helped me learn pasta in the same way.
How do you think our international peers teach their children to cook (and equally, if not more important, love food)? There's a great scene in a Rick Stein episode in Bordeaux where he meets a class of visiting French schoolchildren enthusiastically munching their way through a bucket of the local oysters.
Would we see that here? Effing unlikely. More likely we'd endure the spectacle of parents asking the place whether they have any 'children's food'.
FPT re: obesity. For all that I am a fan of @NickPalmer , I'm fairly shocked and disappointed about his attitude to food. It's worrying enough that a former MP and minister has never bothered to learn to cook. It's more worrying still that a guy who has devoted much of his life to the food and farming sector (and doing great work therein) eats mostly ready meals. Food in a packet is full of shite.
Interestingly, those countries where food and home cookery is prized and children are taught from an early age to eat proper food – namely France and Italy – have among the lowest rates of obesity in the G20. Coincidence? I think not.
A major issue is that many people who don't cook have retreated into a zone of "Cooking means cooking from scratch. Too complicated and I don't have the time."
Start by cheating. I did. Buy sauce in jars, use cans. Some cooking is better than none. Progress where you can and where you have time.
One thing that is completely left out of the cooking books seems to be cooking in bulk, home freezing etc. The myth that every meal has to be 100% hand made and eaten just after cooking......
Imagine if every kid was taught how to make 10 simple, healthy meals.
Why couldn't the climate summit have been conducted online?
I thought until yesterday that the added investment in fuel to get there paid off because of the added gravitas of in person meetings, but I can't for the life of me see any difference between Johnson and Modi being there in person vs Queenie and Xi being remote. If we have had 26 of these things that's ample. If we really need annual COPs three out of four can surely be virtual, with an actual one in Olympic or world Cup years.
BJ wouldn't have been able to have his tiny dick tantrum about plastering the event in Union flags and not wanting to see Sturgeon anywhere near it though.
SNP Types really don't like the Union flag do they? And they've managed to turn the Saltire into a flag of division.
Maybe the socialist utopia that would be indy Scotland will have no flag like IMB's The Culture.
You dopn't get the SG perpetrating this sort of thing in a world heritage site:
In the old days, big events such as coronations had a mix of all three flags (UJ, saltire and Lion Rampant) - now it's almost always solely the UJ in anything which the UKG organizes: the OLympics torch, for instance, was solely UJ plus sponsors).
Which gives very odd overtones given a certain element of Central Belt culture (so to speak). I find myself worrying if it's safe to cross the road.
UJ is a flag of unity. Why is SG flying EU flag?
You've completely missed my point. Utterly and completely.
Sorry.
But anyway - Why is SG flying the EU flag?
so the UJ en masse is itself a visceral symbol of utter division, in an objective sense.
For SNP Types maybe.
Editing the previous post means you lose the argiment at once.
I'm talking about decades of history here, nothing to do with the SNP. Labour voters would have exactly the same reaction, as would Unionist (Conservative post 1950s) voters. Just differed as tyo whether they approved or not.
And you really did not want to risk your life crossing the road in those circumstances.
From the White House pool report on @POTUS journey from Edinburgh to Glasgow: ‘At one point when we were still on smaller country roads, a large, naked Scottish man stood in his front window taking a picture of the motorcade with his phone.’ https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1455550297984671747?s=20
How do we know he was Scottish? Could have been Swedish, for instance.
Why couldn't the climate summit have been conducted online?
I thought until yesterday that the added investment in fuel to get there paid off because of the added gravitas of in person meetings, but I can't for the life of me see any difference between Johnson and Modi being there in person vs Queenie and Xi being remote. If we have had 26 of these things that's ample. If we really need annual COPs three out of four can surely be virtual, with an actual one in Olympic or world Cup years.
BJ wouldn't have been able to have his tiny dick tantrum about plastering the event in Union flags and not wanting to see Sturgeon anywhere near it though.
SNP Types really don't like the Union flag do they? And they've managed to turn the Saltire into a flag of division.
Maybe the socialist utopia that would be indy Scotland will have no flag like IMB's The Culture.
You dopn't get the SG perpetrating this sort of thing in a world heritage site:
In the old days, big events such as coronations had a mix of all three flags (UJ, saltire and Lion Rampant) - now it's almost always solely the UJ in anything which the UKG organizes: the OLympics torch, for instance, was solely UJ plus sponsors).
Which gives very odd overtones given a certain element of Central Belt culture (so to speak). I find myself worrying if it's safe to cross the road.
UJ is a flag of unity. Why is SG flying EU flag?
You've completely missed my point. Utterly and completely.
Sorry.
But anyway - Why is SG flying the EU flag?
so the UJ en masse is itself a visceral symbol of utter division, in an objective sense.
For SNP Types maybe.
Editing the previous post means you lose the argiment at once.
Why couldn't the climate summit have been conducted online?
I thought until yesterday that the added investment in fuel to get there paid off because of the added gravitas of in person meetings, but I can't for the life of me see any difference between Johnson and Modi being there in person vs Queenie and Xi being remote. If we have had 26 of these things that's ample. If we really need annual COPs three out of four can surely be virtual, with an actual one in Olympic or world Cup years.
BJ wouldn't have been able to have his tiny dick tantrum about plastering the event in Union flags and not wanting to see Sturgeon anywhere near it though.
SNP Types really don't like the Union flag do they? And they've managed to turn the Saltire into a flag of division.
Maybe the socialist utopia that would be indy Scotland will have no flag like IMB's The Culture.
You dopn't get the SG perpetrating this sort of thing in a world heritage site:
In the old days, big events such as coronations had a mix of all three flags (UJ, saltire and Lion Rampant) - now it's almost always solely the UJ in anything which the UKG organizes: the OLympics torch, for instance, was solely UJ plus sponsors).
Which gives very odd overtones given a certain element of Central Belt culture (so to speak). I find myself worrying if it's safe to cross the road.
UJ is a flag of unity. Why is SG flying EU flag?
You've completely missed my point. Utterly and completely.
Sorry.
But anyway - Why is SG flying the EU flag?
Because people use flags as a shorthand for displaying their beliefs. The Saltire, the Union Flag, the EU Flag, all of them. People use them as a shorthand for something they think is good.
Every use of a flag is virtue signalling.
I think I agree with this. The only useful use of flags I can see is for identification of official buildings or transport outside ones own country or for forces in times of conflict. Perhaps at a border if people really are too drunk to know which country they are entering or leaving.
Otherwise you are just making a statement of support or allegiance - which is, as you say, another form of virtue signalling.
From the White House pool report on @POTUS journey from Edinburgh to Glasgow: ‘At one point when we were still on smaller country roads, a large, naked Scottish man stood in his front window taking a picture of the motorcade with his phone.’ https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1455550297984671747?s=20
How do we know he was Scottish? Could have been Swedish, for instance.
Do we know any Swedish Scots?.....
That's the wrong way round!
Ah yes sorry, Scottish Swedes... though that sounds somehow slightly insulting.
FPT re: obesity. For all that I am a fan of @NickPalmer , I'm fairly shocked and disappointed about his attitude to food. It's worrying enough that a former MP and minister has never bothered to learn to cook. It's more worrying still that a guy who has devoted much of his life to the food and farming sector (and doing great work therein) eats mostly ready meals. Food in a packet is full of shite.
Interestingly, those countries where food and home cookery is prized and children are taught from an early age to eat proper food – namely France and Italy – have among the lowest rates of obesity in the G20. Coincidence? I think not.
A major issue is that many people who don't cook have retreated into a zone of "Cooking means cooking from scratch. Too complicated and I don't have the time."
Start by cheating. I did. Buy sauce in jars, use cans. Some cooking is better than none. Progress where you can and where you have time.
One thing that is completely left out of the cooking books seems to be cooking in bulk, home freezing etc. The myth that every meal has to be 100% hand made and eaten just after cooking......
Imagine if every kid was taught how to make 10 simple, healthy meals.
From the White House pool report on @POTUS journey from Edinburgh to Glasgow: ‘At one point when we were still on smaller country roads, a large, naked Scottish man stood in his front window taking a picture of the motorcade with his phone.’ https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1455550297984671747?s=20
How do we know he was Scottish? Could have been Swedish, for instance.
Do we know any Swedish Scots?.....
That's the wrong way round!
Ah yes sorry, Scottish Swedes... though that sounds somehow slightly insulting.
Foodyism is just another way to spit in the face of the poor.
Ha ha you're poor - if only you learnt how to Cook you would be eating much better.
I can't cook a fucking thing and have no interest in learning but I utterly despise soi disant car enthusiasts who own adjustable spanners and don't corner balance their cars.
We all have our priorities.
Agreed re priorities. I did have cooking lessons at school, but thought the process was often unpleasant (making jam rolls by smearing the jam on with your fingers, yuck) and the results uninviting. I think Leon's "basic 12" would suffer from the same problem. You need to want to eat the result for motivation, and the school's ideas of what you'd fancy is unlikely to happen to match yours. Indeed, like compulsory Dickens, it would tend to put you off them.
To be positive, a couple of years ago I suddenly thought I'd quite like an omelette, so I asked a friend and I now enjoy knocking them off with a minute's work (actually FASTER than a ready meal, gosh), but as with the joke about how many psychiatrists are needed to change a lightbulb - "Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change"), you need to want it. Cyclefree helped me learn pasta in the same way.
How do you think our international peers teach their children to cook (and equally, if not more important, love food)? There's a great scene in a Rick Stein episode in Bordeaux where he meets a class of visiting French schoolchildren enthusiastically munching their way through a bucket of the local oysters.
Would we see that here? Effing unlikely. More likely we'd endure the spectacle of parents asking the place whether they have any 'children's food'.
My wife and I actively serve our own kids the same food as us each night, whether that is burritos, Thai curry or frittata. Their favourites are still burgers, pizzas and sausages.
Foodyism is just another way to spit in the face of the poor.
Ha ha you're poor - if only you learnt how to Cook you would be eating much better.
I can't cook a fucking thing and have no interest in learning but I utterly despise soi disant car enthusiasts who own adjustable spanners and don't corner balance their cars.
We all have our priorities.
Agreed re priorities. I did have cooking lessons at school, but thought the process was often unpleasant (making jam rolls by smearing the jam on with your fingers, yuck) and the results uninviting. I think Leon's "basic 12" would suffer from the same problem. You need to want to eat the result for motivation, and the school's ideas of what you'd fancy is unlikely to happen to match yours. Indeed, like compulsory Dickens, it would tend to put you off them.
To be positive, a couple of years ago I suddenly thought I'd quite like an omelette, so I asked a friend and I now enjoy knocking them off with a minute's work (actually FASTER than a ready meal, gosh), but as with the joke about how many psychiatrists are needed to change a lightbulb - "Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change"), you need to want it. Cyclefree helped me learn pasta in the same way.
How do you think our international peers teach their children to cook (and equally, if not more important, love food)? There's a great scene in a Rick Stein episode in Bordeaux where he meets a class of visiting French schoolchildren enthusiastically munching their way through a bucket of the local oysters.
Would we see that here? Effing unlikely. More likely we'd endure the spectacle of parents asking the place whether they have any 'children's food'.
Not sure anyone would want their kids munching UK oysters currently in any case..
'Diners poisoned by sewage at Whitstable oyster festival'
From the White House pool report on @POTUS journey from Edinburgh to Glasgow: ‘At one point when we were still on smaller country roads, a large, naked Scottish man stood in his front window taking a picture of the motorcade with his phone.’ https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1455550297984671747?s=20
How do we know he was Scottish? Could have been Swedish, for instance.
Do we know any Swedish Scots?.....
That's the wrong way round!
Ah yes sorry, Scottish Swedes... though that sounds somehow slightly insulting.
FPT re: obesity. For all that I am a fan of @NickPalmer , I'm fairly shocked and disappointed about his attitude to food. It's worrying enough that a former MP and minister has never bothered to learn to cook. It's more worrying still that a guy who has devoted much of his life to the food and farming sector (and doing great work therein) eats mostly ready meals. Food in a packet is full of shite.
Interestingly, those countries where food and home cookery is prized and children are taught from an early age to eat proper food – namely France and Italy – have among the lowest rates of obesity in the G20. Coincidence? I think not.
A major issue is that many people who don't cook have retreated into a zone of "Cooking means cooking from scratch. Too complicated and I don't have the time."
Start by cheating. I did. Buy sauce in jars, use cans. Some cooking is better than none. Progress where you can and where you have time.
One thing that is completely left out of the cooking books seems to be cooking in bulk, home freezing etc. The myth that every meal has to be 100% hand made and eaten just after cooking......
Imagine if every kid was taught how to make 10 simple, healthy meals.
This calls for a PB cookbook!
First, buy your Parmesan shredder.
And stock your store cupboard with three types of Balsamic.
I’ve generally found it bureaucratic, badly-maintained, incurious, but staffed by genuine heroes and there when needed.
I don’t know how it compares globally, but coincidentally I was looking at “perceptions of healthcare quality” across the OECD, and the U.K. tends to come lower down.
France and Switzerland seem to be at the top.
We seem to have given up on reform since Lansley’s ill-fated measures - the only solution is now just to funnel cash into it.
Switzerland has got a fully insurance based system with subsidised access for low income people. Switzerland doesn't have any concept of long term unemployment or living off the welfare state so ultimately the state doesn't need to fund healthcare and welfare for the "won't work" millions we have in the UK claiming ill health.
What happens if a Swiss person can't work then? How do they get by?
They get whatever job they can. There's not really a concept of "can't work". At least not in my experience of living there. The jobs all pay enough that there really isn't very much of a "can't work" attitude. In terms of healthcare there is a provision for low income people but it's a subsidy. Unemployment in Switzerland is mostly incidental rather than structural. They also don't have in working benefits, no housing benefit and generally a very tiny welfare state. Retirement saving is done on an individual basis too and there really isn't a way to avoid it.
It's a very rich and ordered country, and quite a small one, so I can imagine they don't have the poverty issues we do, but there must be people there who, for one reason or another, can't work, or can only work part/time, and who haven't racked up the contributions they need to access state support. Just wondering what happens with such people in a so-called "contributory" benefits system. I've always kind of assumed it's not the whole story. That if you truly haven't a job and have no savings, then regardless of age or employment history, or your attitude, the state will help you out. Or at least there'll be a mechanism for it. In the prosperous West, I mean, of which Switzerland is very much a part. I see hyufd mentioning "emergency support" so maybe that's it.
Again, you're starting from the wrong place. Obviously for people with disabilities etc... there is care available but there just isn't a "can't work" attitude. That is something the UK enables with a non-contributory benefits system. The emergency support is basically a nothing and is essentially a workfare option, the state will make you work for your emergency support. My brother-in-law who is a lazy git ended up going down that route because he didn't want to get a job and he ended up doing street cleaning until he realised that getting paid a real wage was a better idea than workfare.
There really is no concept of "can't work", the idea of it is an anathema. There simply exists no valid reason other than medically diagnosed disability.
You write as if I'm always starting from the wrong place! I don't think I do and I'm not doing here. I get the view you're expressing, if the alternative is utter penury people will get off their fat arses and work, so you'd favour a system where that IS the alternative. Needless to say I find that unpalatable, but I was just curious as to whether any rich country truly has such a 'devil take the hindmost' system (or lack of, rather). And you mentioned Switzerland so I wanted to probe a bit to see if it's actually the case that they have no backstop welfare safety net. So, they do but only for disability then, is what you're saying. Otherwise it's workfare. Ok. But what about single parents? What about mental illness? What about where your wages put you below the poverty line? They must have these issues, even if they are rich and ordered and small.
In Iraq, the initial capture and occupation of Basra, entered into with soft hats and the self-congratulatory confidence of an Army that believed it led the world in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, ended in a humiliating negotiated withdrawal of British forces to the edge of the city, where, pinned down by constant bombardment by the Shia militias who now ran the city, they lost all capacity to exert their influence.
The Americans, distinctly unimpressed at the failure of the British officers, were forced to help Iraqi forces retake the city in 2008’s Charge of the Knights operation, a humiliation for Britain. “This damaged the reputation of British forces with the US and the Iraqis and inflicted major dents in British military self-confidence,” Barry notes. Akam is less stoic, describing it as ”an acute and lasting humiliation to the British Army”, which “will linger and follow the troops halfway around the world to Afghanistan”.
Barry observes: “The US government’s decision to invade Iraq must stand as the worst military decision of the 21st century. It was a military strategic folly on a level equal to that of Napoleon’s 1812 attack on Russia and Hitler’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union.” The failure, then, was ultimately a political one, of British politicians blindly following their American patrons into unwinnable wars.
Perhaps the Army’s capacity to win the next war, like the British state’s to weather the next crisis, would be better served by generals finding the courage, when necessary, to tell politicians that some things simply can’t, or shouldn’t be done.
However I disagree with the conclusion, Iraq is now free of Saddam and Iraqis elect their own government
Iraq was a catastrophic blunder. Worse than Suez if not Vietnam.
Polluted the body politic and opened the floodgates to mass distrust in government and from there to QAnon etc.
Just the other day I was reading some crypto “guru” explain that one could not trust fiat currency because it was “brought to you by the same people who said there were WMDs in Iraq”.
Saddam would still be in power if there had been no invasion
Why has someone flagged this as Off Topic? HYUFD is making a perfectly sensible point, in response to someone else, and doing it in a polite way
This Off Topic crap is quite annoying. May I humble suggest the moderators ban, for life, anyone that does it
Be better to have a 'dislike' button. Especially for y ...
No, but seriously, it would. Because with the present set up we're only getting half the story and it can be very misleading. Like, if you look at sites (eg Beeb) where there's a thumbs up and a thumbs down, what you often find is that the most liked post is also the most disliked. It's a marmite affair. Such a post is a totally different animal to one that lots of people like and hardly anybody doesn't. Or to one that lots dislike and absolutely nobody likes. It's not as good as the first and much better than the second.
We're not getting this naunce.
Eg, a Big G oneliner update on Sky News might not get a bunch of likes but neither would it (if we had it) get any dislikes. Who could dislike a oneliner update from Big G on Sky News? Cf a post from hyufd about invading Scotland, also no likes but would (if we had it) have the dislike button well exercised. At present both of these posts will look as if they've had exactly the same response from the community and this is wrong. It's wrong.
Or take one of your "antiwoke" diatribes. There, only the people who get aroused in a positive sense by this sort of thing get the chance to express this quickly and easily via a button. Again it leads to the post being mismarked (in this case looking more popular than it is), but also think of the human rights aspect. The people who like your post are getting their voices heard but the rest of us (a far greater number) are not. We're effectively neutered. Have to suffer in silence. Not to hyperbolize but there are mental health and blood pressure ramifications of having to tolerate such a regime.
So that's my request and it's a formal one. Change the "off topic" button to a "dislike" one.
It rarely bothers me if I get likes or not, it certainly would not bother me if I got dislikes, especially from left liberals on here.
I post what I think not to fall into line with others' views (plus there is no need to invade Scotland as Boris will simply refuse an indyref2 and union matters are reserved to Westminster)
You think he can get away with simply refusing indyref2? You could be right but my feeling is there's constitutional drama coming in 22/23.
In Iraq, the initial capture and occupation of Basra, entered into with soft hats and the self-congratulatory confidence of an Army that believed it led the world in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, ended in a humiliating negotiated withdrawal of British forces to the edge of the city, where, pinned down by constant bombardment by the Shia militias who now ran the city, they lost all capacity to exert their influence.
The Americans, distinctly unimpressed at the failure of the British officers, were forced to help Iraqi forces retake the city in 2008’s Charge of the Knights operation, a humiliation for Britain. “This damaged the reputation of British forces with the US and the Iraqis and inflicted major dents in British military self-confidence,” Barry notes. Akam is less stoic, describing it as ”an acute and lasting humiliation to the British Army”, which “will linger and follow the troops halfway around the world to Afghanistan”.
Barry observes: “The US government’s decision to invade Iraq must stand as the worst military decision of the 21st century. It was a military strategic folly on a level equal to that of Napoleon’s 1812 attack on Russia and Hitler’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union.” The failure, then, was ultimately a political one, of British politicians blindly following their American patrons into unwinnable wars.
Perhaps the Army’s capacity to win the next war, like the British state’s to weather the next crisis, would be better served by generals finding the courage, when necessary, to tell politicians that some things simply can’t, or shouldn’t be done.
However I disagree with the conclusion, Iraq is now free of Saddam and Iraqis elect their own government
Iraq was a catastrophic blunder. Worse than Suez if not Vietnam.
Polluted the body politic and opened the floodgates to mass distrust in government and from there to QAnon etc.
Just the other day I was reading some crypto “guru” explain that one could not trust fiat currency because it was “brought to you by the same people who said there were WMDs in Iraq”.
Saddam would still be in power if there had been no invasion
Why has someone flagged this as Off Topic? HYUFD is making a perfectly sensible point, in response to someone else, and doing it in a polite way
This Off Topic crap is quite annoying. May I humble suggest the moderators ban, for life, anyone that does it
Be better to have a 'dislike' button. Especially for y ...
No, but seriously, it would. Because with the present set up we're only getting half the story and it can be very misleading. Like, if you look at sites (eg Beeb) where there's a thumbs up and a thumbs down, what you often find is that the most liked post is also the most disliked. It's a marmite affair. Such a post is a totally different animal to one that lots of people like and hardly anybody doesn't. Or to one that lots dislike and absolutely nobody likes. It's not as good as the first and much better than the second.
We're not getting this naunce.
Eg, a Big G oneliner update on Sky News might not get a bunch of likes but neither would it (if we had it) get any dislikes. Who could dislike a oneliner update from Big G on Sky News? Cf a post from hyufd about invading Scotland, also no likes but would (if we had it) have the dislike button well exercised. At present both of these posts will look as if they've had exactly the same response from the community and this is wrong. It's wrong.
Or take one of your "antiwoke" diatribes. There, only the people who get aroused in a positive sense by this sort of thing get the chance to express this quickly and easily via a button. Again it leads to the post being mismarked (in this case looking more popular than it is), but also think of the human rights aspect. The people who like your post are getting their voices heard but the rest of us (a far greater number) are not. We're effectively neutered. Have to suffer in silence. Not to hyperbolize but there are mental health and blood pressure ramifications of having to tolerate such a regime.
So that's my request and it's a formal one. Change the "off topic" button to a "dislike" one.
It rarely bothers me if I get likes or not, it certainly would not bother me if I got dislikes, especially from left liberals on here.
I post what I think not to fall into line with others' views (plus there is no need to invade Scotland as Boris will simply refuse an indyref2 and union matters are reserved to Westminster)
You think he can get away with simply refusing indyref2? You could be right but my feeling is there's constitutional drama coming in 22/23.
You have to remember HYUFD claims the divine right of kings operates in the UK (and will, when Charles III succeeds).
In Iraq, the initial capture and occupation of Basra, entered into with soft hats and the self-congratulatory confidence of an Army that believed it led the world in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, ended in a humiliating negotiated withdrawal of British forces to the edge of the city, where, pinned down by constant bombardment by the Shia militias who now ran the city, they lost all capacity to exert their influence.
The Americans, distinctly unimpressed at the failure of the British officers, were forced to help Iraqi forces retake the city in 2008’s Charge of the Knights operation, a humiliation for Britain. “This damaged the reputation of British forces with the US and the Iraqis and inflicted major dents in British military self-confidence,” Barry notes. Akam is less stoic, describing it as ”an acute and lasting humiliation to the British Army”, which “will linger and follow the troops halfway around the world to Afghanistan”.
Barry observes: “The US government’s decision to invade Iraq must stand as the worst military decision of the 21st century. It was a military strategic folly on a level equal to that of Napoleon’s 1812 attack on Russia and Hitler’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union.” The failure, then, was ultimately a political one, of British politicians blindly following their American patrons into unwinnable wars.
Perhaps the Army’s capacity to win the next war, like the British state’s to weather the next crisis, would be better served by generals finding the courage, when necessary, to tell politicians that some things simply can’t, or shouldn’t be done.
However I disagree with the conclusion, Iraq is now free of Saddam and Iraqis elect their own government
Iraq was a catastrophic blunder. Worse than Suez if not Vietnam.
Polluted the body politic and opened the floodgates to mass distrust in government and from there to QAnon etc.
Just the other day I was reading some crypto “guru” explain that one could not trust fiat currency because it was “brought to you by the same people who said there were WMDs in Iraq”.
Saddam would still be in power if there had been no invasion
Why has someone flagged this as Off Topic? HYUFD is making a perfectly sensible point, in response to someone else, and doing it in a polite way
This Off Topic crap is quite annoying. May I humble suggest the moderators ban, for life, anyone that does it
Be better to have a 'dislike' button. Especially for y ...
No, but seriously, it would. Because with the present set up we're only getting half the story and it can be very misleading. Like, if you look at sites (eg Beeb) where there's a thumbs up and a thumbs down, what you often find is that the most liked post is also the most disliked. It's a marmite affair. Such a post is a totally different animal to one that lots of people like and hardly anybody doesn't. Or to one that lots dislike and absolutely nobody likes. It's not as good as the first and much better than the second.
We're not getting this naunce.
Eg, a Big G oneliner update on Sky News might not get a bunch of likes but neither would it (if we had it) get any dislikes. Who could dislike a oneliner update from Big G on Sky News? Cf a post from hyufd about invading Scotland, also no likes but would (if we had it) have the dislike button well exercised. At present both of these posts will look as if they've had exactly the same response from the community and this is wrong. It's wrong.
Or take one of your "antiwoke" diatribes. There, only the people who get aroused in a positive sense by this sort of thing get the chance to express this quickly and easily via a button. Again it leads to the post being mismarked (in this case looking more popular than it is), but also think of the human rights aspect. The people who like your post are getting their voices heard but the rest of us (a far greater number) are not. We're effectively neutered. Have to suffer in silence. Not to hyperbolize but there are mental health and blood pressure ramifications of having to tolerate such a regime.
So that's my request and it's a formal one. Change the "off topic" button to a "dislike" one.
It rarely bothers me if I get likes or not, it certainly would not bother me if I got dislikes, especially from left liberals on here.
I post what I think not to fall into line with others' views (plus there is no need to invade Scotland as Boris will simply refuse an indyref2 and union matters are reserved to Westminster)
You think he can get away with simply refusing indyref2? You could be right but my feeling is there's constitutional drama coming in 22/23.
He wouldn't have been able to but-
"Once in a generation" was uttered hundreds of times by all sorts of SNP Types in 2014
I’ve generally found it bureaucratic, badly-maintained, incurious, but staffed by genuine heroes and there when needed.
I don’t know how it compares globally, but coincidentally I was looking at “perceptions of healthcare quality” across the OECD, and the U.K. tends to come lower down.
France and Switzerland seem to be at the top.
We seem to have given up on reform since Lansley’s ill-fated measures - the only solution is now just to funnel cash into it.
Switzerland has got a fully insurance based system with subsidised access for low income people. Switzerland doesn't have any concept of long term unemployment or living off the welfare state so ultimately the state doesn't need to fund healthcare and welfare for the "won't work" millions we have in the UK claiming ill health.
What happens if a Swiss person can't work then? How do they get by?
They get whatever job they can. There's not really a concept of "can't work". At least not in my experience of living there. The jobs all pay enough that there really isn't very much of a "can't work" attitude. In terms of healthcare there is a provision for low income people but it's a subsidy. Unemployment in Switzerland is mostly incidental rather than structural. They also don't have in working benefits, no housing benefit and generally a very tiny welfare state. Retirement saving is done on an individual basis too and there really isn't a way to avoid it.
It's a very rich and ordered country, and quite a small one, so I can imagine they don't have the poverty issues we do, but there must be people there who, for one reason or another, can't work, or can only work part/time, and who haven't racked up the contributions they need to access state support. Just wondering what happens with such people in a so-called "contributory" benefits system. I've always kind of assumed it's not the whole story. That if you truly haven't a job and have no savings, then regardless of age or employment history, or your attitude, the state will help you out. Or at least there'll be a mechanism for it. In the prosperous West, I mean, of which Switzerland is very much a part. I see hyufd mentioning "emergency support" so maybe that's it.
Again, you're starting from the wrong place. Obviously for people with disabilities etc... there is care available but there just isn't a "can't work" attitude. That is something the UK enables with a non-contributory benefits system. The emergency support is basically a nothing and is essentially a workfare option, the state will make you work for your emergency support. My brother-in-law who is a lazy git ended up going down that route because he didn't want to get a job and he ended up doing street cleaning until he realised that getting paid a real wage was a better idea than workfare.
There really is no concept of "can't work", the idea of it is an anathema. There simply exists no valid reason other than medically diagnosed disability.
You write as if I'm always starting from the wrong place! I don't think I do and I'm not doing here. I get the view you're expressing, if the alternative is utter penury people will get off their fat arses and work, so you'd favour a system where that IS the alternative. Needless to say I find that unpalatable, but I was just curious as to whether any rich country truly has such a 'devil take the hindmost' system (or lack of, rather). And you mentioned Switzerland so I wanted to probe a bit to see if it's actually the case that they have no backstop welfare safety net. So, they do but only for disability then, is what you're saying. Otherwise it's workfare. Ok. But what about single parents? What about mental illness? What about where your wages put you below the poverty line? They must have these issues, even if they are rich and ordered and small.
Again there is not much difference between them and us anyway. Swiss contributory benefits are actually higher than our contributory JSA. Yes they have a workfare style emergency support but here too now UC is not just given away, you have to be actively looking for jobs and going on training courses to continue to get it.
The USA, where if you have not contributed enough in unemployment insurance for time limited unemployment benefits you get nothing other than foodstamps (which also have a workfare requirement to receive), is tougher than both.
On the other hand if you wanted to really live off welfare you would be better off going to Sweden or Finland than the UK
In Iraq, the initial capture and occupation of Basra, entered into with soft hats and the self-congratulatory confidence of an Army that believed it led the world in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, ended in a humiliating negotiated withdrawal of British forces to the edge of the city, where, pinned down by constant bombardment by the Shia militias who now ran the city, they lost all capacity to exert their influence.
The Americans, distinctly unimpressed at the failure of the British officers, were forced to help Iraqi forces retake the city in 2008’s Charge of the Knights operation, a humiliation for Britain. “This damaged the reputation of British forces with the US and the Iraqis and inflicted major dents in British military self-confidence,” Barry notes. Akam is less stoic, describing it as ”an acute and lasting humiliation to the British Army”, which “will linger and follow the troops halfway around the world to Afghanistan”.
Barry observes: “The US government’s decision to invade Iraq must stand as the worst military decision of the 21st century. It was a military strategic folly on a level equal to that of Napoleon’s 1812 attack on Russia and Hitler’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union.” The failure, then, was ultimately a political one, of British politicians blindly following their American patrons into unwinnable wars.
Perhaps the Army’s capacity to win the next war, like the British state’s to weather the next crisis, would be better served by generals finding the courage, when necessary, to tell politicians that some things simply can’t, or shouldn’t be done.
However I disagree with the conclusion, Iraq is now free of Saddam and Iraqis elect their own government
Iraq was a catastrophic blunder. Worse than Suez if not Vietnam.
Polluted the body politic and opened the floodgates to mass distrust in government and from there to QAnon etc.
Just the other day I was reading some crypto “guru” explain that one could not trust fiat currency because it was “brought to you by the same people who said there were WMDs in Iraq”.
Saddam would still be in power if there had been no invasion
Why has someone flagged this as Off Topic? HYUFD is making a perfectly sensible point, in response to someone else, and doing it in a polite way
This Off Topic crap is quite annoying. May I humble suggest the moderators ban, for life, anyone that does it
Be better to have a 'dislike' button. Especially for y ...
No, but seriously, it would. Because with the present set up we're only getting half the story and it can be very misleading. Like, if you look at sites (eg Beeb) where there's a thumbs up and a thumbs down, what you often find is that the most liked post is also the most disliked. It's a marmite affair. Such a post is a totally different animal to one that lots of people like and hardly anybody doesn't. Or to one that lots dislike and absolutely nobody likes. It's not as good as the first and much better than the second.
We're not getting this naunce.
Eg, a Big G oneliner update on Sky News might not get a bunch of likes but neither would it (if we had it) get any dislikes. Who could dislike a oneliner update from Big G on Sky News? Cf a post from hyufd about invading Scotland, also no likes but would (if we had it) have the dislike button well exercised. At present both of these posts will look as if they've had exactly the same response from the community and this is wrong. It's wrong.
Or take one of your "antiwoke" diatribes. There, only the people who get aroused in a positive sense by this sort of thing get the chance to express this quickly and easily via a button. Again it leads to the post being mismarked (in this case looking more popular than it is), but also think of the human rights aspect. The people who like your post are getting their voices heard but the rest of us (a far greater number) are not. We're effectively neutered. Have to suffer in silence. Not to hyperbolize but there are mental health and blood pressure ramifications of having to tolerate such a regime.
So that's my request and it's a formal one. Change the "off topic" button to a "dislike" one.
It rarely bothers me if I get likes or not, it certainly would not bother me if I got dislikes, especially from left liberals on here.
I post what I think not to fall into line with others' views (plus there is no need to invade Scotland as Boris will simply refuse an indyref2 and union matters are reserved to Westminster)
You think he can get away with simply refusing indyref2? You could be right but my feeling is there's constitutional drama coming in 22/23.
He can, most Scots do not want an indyref2 within the next 5 years (and certainly not by the next UK general election in 2024) and those who do are mainly SNP supporters or 2014 Yes voters who are only a minority of Scots anyway
In Iraq, the initial capture and occupation of Basra, entered into with soft hats and the self-congratulatory confidence of an Army that believed it led the world in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, ended in a humiliating negotiated withdrawal of British forces to the edge of the city, where, pinned down by constant bombardment by the Shia militias who now ran the city, they lost all capacity to exert their influence.
The Americans, distinctly unimpressed at the failure of the British officers, were forced to help Iraqi forces retake the city in 2008’s Charge of the Knights operation, a humiliation for Britain. “This damaged the reputation of British forces with the US and the Iraqis and inflicted major dents in British military self-confidence,” Barry notes. Akam is less stoic, describing it as ”an acute and lasting humiliation to the British Army”, which “will linger and follow the troops halfway around the world to Afghanistan”.
Barry observes: “The US government’s decision to invade Iraq must stand as the worst military decision of the 21st century. It was a military strategic folly on a level equal to that of Napoleon’s 1812 attack on Russia and Hitler’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union.” The failure, then, was ultimately a political one, of British politicians blindly following their American patrons into unwinnable wars.
Perhaps the Army’s capacity to win the next war, like the British state’s to weather the next crisis, would be better served by generals finding the courage, when necessary, to tell politicians that some things simply can’t, or shouldn’t be done.
However I disagree with the conclusion, Iraq is now free of Saddam and Iraqis elect their own government
Iraq was a catastrophic blunder. Worse than Suez if not Vietnam.
Polluted the body politic and opened the floodgates to mass distrust in government and from there to QAnon etc.
Just the other day I was reading some crypto “guru” explain that one could not trust fiat currency because it was “brought to you by the same people who said there were WMDs in Iraq”.
Saddam would still be in power if there had been no invasion
Why has someone flagged this as Off Topic? HYUFD is making a perfectly sensible point, in response to someone else, and doing it in a polite way
This Off Topic crap is quite annoying. May I humble suggest the moderators ban, for life, anyone that does it
Be better to have a 'dislike' button. Especially for y ...
No, but seriously, it would. Because with the present set up we're only getting half the story and it can be very misleading. Like, if you look at sites (eg Beeb) where there's a thumbs up and a thumbs down, what you often find is that the most liked post is also the most disliked. It's a marmite affair. Such a post is a totally different animal to one that lots of people like and hardly anybody doesn't. Or to one that lots dislike and absolutely nobody likes. It's not as good as the first and much better than the second.
We're not getting this naunce.
Eg, a Big G oneliner update on Sky News might not get a bunch of likes but neither would it (if we had it) get any dislikes. Who could dislike a oneliner update from Big G on Sky News? Cf a post from hyufd about invading Scotland, also no likes but would (if we had it) have the dislike button well exercised. At present both of these posts will look as if they've had exactly the same response from the community and this is wrong. It's wrong.
Or take one of your "antiwoke" diatribes. There, only the people who get aroused in a positive sense by this sort of thing get the chance to express this quickly and easily via a button. Again it leads to the post being mismarked (in this case looking more popular than it is), but also think of the human rights aspect. The people who like your post are getting their voices heard but the rest of us (a far greater number) are not. We're effectively neutered. Have to suffer in silence. Not to hyperbolize but there are mental health and blood pressure ramifications of having to tolerate such a regime.
So that's my request and it's a formal one. Change the "off topic" button to a "dislike" one.
It rarely bothers me if I get likes or not, it certainly would not bother me if I got dislikes, especially from left liberals on here.
I post what I think not to fall into line with others' views (plus there is no need to invade Scotland as Boris will simply refuse an indyref2 and union matters are reserved to Westminster)
You think he can get away with simply refusing indyref2? You could be right but my feeling is there's constitutional drama coming in 22/23.
You have to remember HYUFD claims the divine right of kings operates in the UK (and will, when Charles III succeeds).
Not for manifesto commitments of the elected government
Foodyism is just another way to spit in the face of the poor.
Ha ha you're poor - if only you learnt how to Cook you would be eating much better.
I can't cook a fucking thing and have no interest in learning but I utterly despise soi disant car enthusiasts who own adjustable spanners and don't corner balance their cars.
We all have our priorities.
Agreed re priorities. I did have cooking lessons at school, but thought the process was often unpleasant (making jam rolls by smearing the jam on with your fingers, yuck) and the results uninviting. I think Leon's "basic 12" would suffer from the same problem. You need to want to eat the result for motivation, and the school's ideas of what you'd fancy is unlikely to happen to match yours. Indeed, like compulsory Dickens, it would tend to put you off them.
To be positive, a couple of years ago I suddenly thought I'd quite like an omelette, so I asked a friend and I now enjoy knocking them off with a minute's work (actually FASTER than a ready meal, gosh), but as with the joke about how many psychiatrists are needed to change a lightbulb - "Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change"), you need to want it. Cyclefree helped me learn pasta in the same way.
How do you think our international peers teach their children to cook (and equally, if not more important, love food)? There's a great scene in a Rick Stein episode in Bordeaux where he meets a class of visiting French schoolchildren enthusiastically munching their way through a bucket of the local oysters.
Would we see that here? Effing unlikely. More likely we'd endure the spectacle of parents asking the place whether they have any 'children's food'.
My wife and I actively serve our own kids the same food as us each night, whether that is burritos, Thai curry or frittata. Their favourites are still burgers, pizzas and sausages.
Their favourites are immaterial. They still eat the other stuff – which is the point!
I’ve generally found it bureaucratic, badly-maintained, incurious, but staffed by genuine heroes and there when needed.
I don’t know how it compares globally, but coincidentally I was looking at “perceptions of healthcare quality” across the OECD, and the U.K. tends to come lower down.
France and Switzerland seem to be at the top.
We seem to have given up on reform since Lansley’s ill-fated measures - the only solution is now just to funnel cash into it.
Switzerland has got a fully insurance based system with subsidised access for low income people. Switzerland doesn't have any concept of long term unemployment or living off the welfare state so ultimately the state doesn't need to fund healthcare and welfare for the "won't work" millions we have in the UK claiming ill health.
What happens if a Swiss person can't work then? How do they get by?
They get whatever job they can. There's not really a concept of "can't work". At least not in my experience of living there. The jobs all pay enough that there really isn't very much of a "can't work" attitude. In terms of healthcare there is a provision for low income people but it's a subsidy. Unemployment in Switzerland is mostly incidental rather than structural. They also don't have in working benefits, no housing benefit and generally a very tiny welfare state. Retirement saving is done on an individual basis too and there really isn't a way to avoid it.
It's a very rich and ordered country, and quite a small one, so I can imagine they don't have the poverty issues we do, but there must be people there who, for one reason or another, can't work, or can only work part/time, and who haven't racked up the contributions they need to access state support. Just wondering what happens with such people in a so-called "contributory" benefits system. I've always kind of assumed it's not the whole story. That if you truly haven't a job and have no savings, then regardless of age or employment history, or your attitude, the state will help you out. Or at least there'll be a mechanism for it. In the prosperous West, I mean, of which Switzerland is very much a part. I see hyufd mentioning "emergency support" so maybe that's it.
Again, you're starting from the wrong place. Obviously for people with disabilities etc... there is care available but there just isn't a "can't work" attitude. That is something the UK enables with a non-contributory benefits system. The emergency support is basically a nothing and is essentially a workfare option, the state will make you work for your emergency support. My brother-in-law who is a lazy git ended up going down that route because he didn't want to get a job and he ended up doing street cleaning until he realised that getting paid a real wage was a better idea than workfare.
There really is no concept of "can't work", the idea of it is an anathema. There simply exists no valid reason other than medically diagnosed disability.
You write as if I'm always starting from the wrong place! I don't think I do and I'm not doing here. I get the view you're expressing, if the alternative is utter penury people will get off their fat arses and work, so you'd favour a system where that IS the alternative. Needless to say I find that unpalatable, but I was just curious as to whether any rich country truly has such a 'devil take the hindmost' system (or lack of, rather). And you mentioned Switzerland so I wanted to probe a bit to see if it's actually the case that they have no backstop welfare safety net. So, they do but only for disability then, is what you're saying. Otherwise it's workfare. Ok. But what about single parents? What about mental illness? What about where your wages put you below the poverty line? They must have these issues, even if they are rich and ordered and small.
Earnings are so high in Switzerland that working poverty isn't an issue, even a cleaner gets paid ~25/h, that's full time income of 52k francs per year. Low income is a lifestyle choice in Switzerland and there isn't really a safety net for poor life choices. In work benefits don't exist either, the Swiss benefits system is very generous when you need it but the circumstances to qualify are very limited. Unemployment is one of them and even then there is a qualification period if the unemployment is by choice (I think it's 90 days from what my mother in law was saying). It's only on being sacked or redundancy that a person immediately qualifies for unemployment support.
If we could lift the Swiss welfare system wholesale and apply it to the UK we'd all be better off.
Why couldn't the climate summit have been conducted online?
I thought until yesterday that the added investment in fuel to get there paid off because of the added gravitas of in person meetings, but I can't for the life of me see any difference between Johnson and Modi being there in person vs Queenie and Xi being remote. If we have had 26 of these things that's ample. If we really need annual COPs three out of four can surely be virtual, with an actual one in Olympic or world Cup years.
BJ wouldn't have been able to have his tiny dick tantrum about plastering the event in Union flags and not wanting to see Sturgeon anywhere near it though.
SNP Types really don't like the Union flag do they? And they've managed to turn the Saltire into a flag of division.
Maybe the socialist utopia that would be indy Scotland will have no flag like IMB's The Culture.
You dopn't get the SG perpetrating this sort of thing in a world heritage site:
In the old days, big events such as coronations had a mix of all three flags (UJ, saltire and Lion Rampant) - now it's almost always solely the UJ in anything which the UKG organizes: the OLympics torch, for instance, was solely UJ plus sponsors).
Which gives very odd overtones given a certain element of Central Belt culture (so to speak). I find myself worrying if it's safe to cross the road.
UJ is a flag of unity. Why is SG flying EU flag?
You've completely missed my point. Utterly and completely.
Sorry.
But anyway - Why is SG flying the EU flag?
Because people use flags as a shorthand for displaying their beliefs. The Saltire, the Union Flag, the EU Flag, all of them. People use them as a shorthand for something they think is good.
Every use of a flag is virtue signalling.
Possible exception for white flag?
Edit: although even that possibly is signalling the virtue of knowing when you're beat.
Foodyism is just another way to spit in the face of the poor.
Ha ha you're poor - if only you learnt how to Cook you would be eating much better.
I can't cook a fucking thing and have no interest in learning but I utterly despise soi disant car enthusiasts who own adjustable spanners and don't corner balance their cars.
We all have our priorities.
Agreed re priorities. I did have cooking lessons at school, but thought the process was often unpleasant (making jam rolls by smearing the jam on with your fingers, yuck) and the results uninviting. I think Leon's "basic 12" would suffer from the same problem. You need to want to eat the result for motivation, and the school's ideas of what you'd fancy is unlikely to happen to match yours. Indeed, like compulsory Dickens, it would tend to put you off them.
To be positive, a couple of years ago I suddenly thought I'd quite like an omelette, so I asked a friend and I now enjoy knocking them off with a minute's work (actually FASTER than a ready meal, gosh), but as with the joke about how many psychiatrists are needed to change a lightbulb - "Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change"), you need to want it. Cyclefree helped me learn pasta in the same way.
How do you think our international peers teach their children to cook (and equally, if not more important, love food)? There's a great scene in a Rick Stein episode in Bordeaux where he meets a class of visiting French schoolchildren enthusiastically munching their way through a bucket of the local oysters.
Would we see that here? Effing unlikely. More likely we'd endure the spectacle of parents asking the place whether they have any 'children's food'.
Not sure anyone would want their kids munching UK oysters currently in any case..
'Diners poisoned by sewage at Whitstable oyster festival'
Why couldn't the climate summit have been conducted online?
I thought until yesterday that the added investment in fuel to get there paid off because of the added gravitas of in person meetings, but I can't for the life of me see any difference between Johnson and Modi being there in person vs Queenie and Xi being remote. If we have had 26 of these things that's ample. If we really need annual COPs three out of four can surely be virtual, with an actual one in Olympic or world Cup years.
BJ wouldn't have been able to have his tiny dick tantrum about plastering the event in Union flags and not wanting to see Sturgeon anywhere near it though.
Glasgow was chosen to make you feel important and loved yet I detect no great change in your attitude, tud. May as well have had it in the Cotswolds, seems to me.
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
I’ve generally found it bureaucratic, badly-maintained, incurious, but staffed by genuine heroes and there when needed.
I don’t know how it compares globally, but coincidentally I was looking at “perceptions of healthcare quality” across the OECD, and the U.K. tends to come lower down.
France and Switzerland seem to be at the top.
We seem to have given up on reform since Lansley’s ill-fated measures - the only solution is now just to funnel cash into it.
Switzerland has got a fully insurance based system with subsidised access for low income people. Switzerland doesn't have any concept of long term unemployment or living off the welfare state so ultimately the state doesn't need to fund healthcare and welfare for the "won't work" millions we have in the UK claiming ill health.
What happens if a Swiss person can't work then? How do they get by?
They get whatever job they can. There's not really a concept of "can't work". At least not in my experience of living there. The jobs all pay enough that there really isn't very much of a "can't work" attitude. In terms of healthcare there is a provision for low income people but it's a subsidy. Unemployment in Switzerland is mostly incidental rather than structural. They also don't have in working benefits, no housing benefit and generally a very tiny welfare state. Retirement saving is done on an individual basis too and there really isn't a way to avoid it.
It's a very rich and ordered country, and quite a small one, so I can imagine they don't have the poverty issues we do, but there must be people there who, for one reason or another, can't work, or can only work part/time, and who haven't racked up the contributions they need to access state support. Just wondering what happens with such people in a so-called "contributory" benefits system. I've always kind of assumed it's not the whole story. That if you truly haven't a job and have no savings, then regardless of age or employment history, or your attitude, the state will help you out. Or at least there'll be a mechanism for it. In the prosperous West, I mean, of which Switzerland is very much a part. I see hyufd mentioning "emergency support" so maybe that's it.
Again, you're starting from the wrong place. Obviously for people with disabilities etc... there is care available but there just isn't a "can't work" attitude. That is something the UK enables with a non-contributory benefits system. The emergency support is basically a nothing and is essentially a workfare option, the state will make you work for your emergency support. My brother-in-law who is a lazy git ended up going down that route because he didn't want to get a job and he ended up doing street cleaning until he realised that getting paid a real wage was a better idea than workfare.
There really is no concept of "can't work", the idea of it is an anathema. There simply exists no valid reason other than medically diagnosed disability.
You write as if I'm always starting from the wrong place! I don't think I do and I'm not doing here. I get the view you're expressing, if the alternative is utter penury people will get off their fat arses and work, so you'd favour a system where that IS the alternative. Needless to say I find that unpalatable, but I was just curious as to whether any rich country truly has such a 'devil take the hindmost' system (or lack of, rather). And you mentioned Switzerland so I wanted to probe a bit to see if it's actually the case that they have no backstop welfare safety net. So, they do but only for disability then, is what you're saying. Otherwise it's workfare. Ok. But what about single parents? What about mental illness? What about where your wages put you below the poverty line? They must have these issues, even if they are rich and ordered and small.
Earnings are so high in Switzerland that working poverty isn't an issue, even a cleaner gets paid ~25/h, that's full time income of 52k francs per year. Low income is a lifestyle choice in Switzerland and there isn't really a safety net for poor life choices. In work benefits don't exist either, the Swiss benefits system is very generous when you need it but the circumstances to qualify are very limited. Unemployment is one of them and even then there is a qualification period if the unemployment is by choice (I think it's 90 days from what my mother in law was saying). It's only on being sacked or redundancy that a person immediately qualifies for unemployment support.
If we could lift the Swiss welfare system wholesale and apply it to the UK we'd all be better off.
We wouldn't as we are not a tax haven like they are.
As I have also posted their welfare system is not a million miles from ours anyway now, indeed it is probably closer to ours than it is to the extremes of the Nordic countries and US welfare systems. Plus JSA is contributory now based on NI contributions
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
Ms
If you ever got a teacher with Ms, you knew you were in for a long year...
In Iraq, the initial capture and occupation of Basra, entered into with soft hats and the self-congratulatory confidence of an Army that believed it led the world in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, ended in a humiliating negotiated withdrawal of British forces to the edge of the city, where, pinned down by constant bombardment by the Shia militias who now ran the city, they lost all capacity to exert their influence.
The Americans, distinctly unimpressed at the failure of the British officers, were forced to help Iraqi forces retake the city in 2008’s Charge of the Knights operation, a humiliation for Britain. “This damaged the reputation of British forces with the US and the Iraqis and inflicted major dents in British military self-confidence,” Barry notes. Akam is less stoic, describing it as ”an acute and lasting humiliation to the British Army”, which “will linger and follow the troops halfway around the world to Afghanistan”.
Barry observes: “The US government’s decision to invade Iraq must stand as the worst military decision of the 21st century. It was a military strategic folly on a level equal to that of Napoleon’s 1812 attack on Russia and Hitler’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union.” The failure, then, was ultimately a political one, of British politicians blindly following their American patrons into unwinnable wars.
Perhaps the Army’s capacity to win the next war, like the British state’s to weather the next crisis, would be better served by generals finding the courage, when necessary, to tell politicians that some things simply can’t, or shouldn’t be done.
However I disagree with the conclusion, Iraq is now free of Saddam and Iraqis elect their own government
Iraq was a catastrophic blunder. Worse than Suez if not Vietnam.
Polluted the body politic and opened the floodgates to mass distrust in government and from there to QAnon etc.
Just the other day I was reading some crypto “guru” explain that one could not trust fiat currency because it was “brought to you by the same people who said there were WMDs in Iraq”.
Saddam would still be in power if there had been no invasion
Why has someone flagged this as Off Topic? HYUFD is making a perfectly sensible point, in response to someone else, and doing it in a polite way
This Off Topic crap is quite annoying. May I humble suggest the moderators ban, for life, anyone that does it
Be better to have a 'dislike' button. Especially for y ...
No, but seriously, it would. Because with the present set up we're only getting half the story and it can be very misleading. Like, if you look at sites (eg Beeb) where there's a thumbs up and a thumbs down, what you often find is that the most liked post is also the most disliked. It's a marmite affair. Such a post is a totally different animal to one that lots of people like and hardly anybody doesn't. Or to one that lots dislike and absolutely nobody likes. It's not as good as the first and much better than the second.
We're not getting this naunce.
Eg, a Big G oneliner update on Sky News might not get a bunch of likes but neither would it (if we had it) get any dislikes. Who could dislike a oneliner update from Big G on Sky News? Cf a post from hyufd about invading Scotland, also no likes but would (if we had it) have the dislike button well exercised. At present both of these posts will look as if they've had exactly the same response from the community and this is wrong. It's wrong.
Or take one of your "antiwoke" diatribes. There, only the people who get aroused in a positive sense by this sort of thing get the chance to express this quickly and easily via a button. Again it leads to the post being mismarked (in this case looking more popular than it is), but also think of the human rights aspect. The people who like your post are getting their voices heard but the rest of us (a far greater number) are not. We're effectively neutered. Have to suffer in silence. Not to hyperbolize but there are mental health and blood pressure ramifications of having to tolerate such a regime.
So that's my request and it's a formal one. Change the "off topic" button to a "dislike" one.
It rarely bothers me if I get likes or not, it certainly would not bother me if I got dislikes, especially from left liberals on here.
I post what I think not to fall into line with others' views (plus there is no need to invade Scotland as Boris will simply refuse an indyref2 and union matters are reserved to Westminster)
You think he can get away with simply refusing indyref2? You could be right but my feeling is there's constitutional drama coming in 22/23.
He wouldn't have been able to but-
"Once in a generation" was uttered hundreds of times by all sorts of SNP Types in 2014
I’ve generally found it bureaucratic, badly-maintained, incurious, but staffed by genuine heroes and there when needed.
I don’t know how it compares globally, but coincidentally I was looking at “perceptions of healthcare quality” across the OECD, and the U.K. tends to come lower down.
France and Switzerland seem to be at the top.
We seem to have given up on reform since Lansley’s ill-fated measures - the only solution is now just to funnel cash into it.
Switzerland has got a fully insurance based system with subsidised access for low income people. Switzerland doesn't have any concept of long term unemployment or living off the welfare state so ultimately the state doesn't need to fund healthcare and welfare for the "won't work" millions we have in the UK claiming ill health.
What happens if a Swiss person can't work then? How do they get by?
They get whatever job they can. There's not really a concept of "can't work". At least not in my experience of living there. The jobs all pay enough that there really isn't very much of a "can't work" attitude. In terms of healthcare there is a provision for low income people but it's a subsidy. Unemployment in Switzerland is mostly incidental rather than structural. They also don't have in working benefits, no housing benefit and generally a very tiny welfare state. Retirement saving is done on an individual basis too and there really isn't a way to avoid it.
It's a very rich and ordered country, and quite a small one, so I can imagine they don't have the poverty issues we do, but there must be people there who, for one reason or another, can't work, or can only work part/time, and who haven't racked up the contributions they need to access state support. Just wondering what happens with such people in a so-called "contributory" benefits system. I've always kind of assumed it's not the whole story. That if you truly haven't a job and have no savings, then regardless of age or employment history, or your attitude, the state will help you out. Or at least there'll be a mechanism for it. In the prosperous West, I mean, of which Switzerland is very much a part. I see hyufd mentioning "emergency support" so maybe that's it.
Again, you're starting from the wrong place. Obviously for people with disabilities etc... there is care available but there just isn't a "can't work" attitude. That is something the UK enables with a non-contributory benefits system. The emergency support is basically a nothing and is essentially a workfare option, the state will make you work for your emergency support. My brother-in-law who is a lazy git ended up going down that route because he didn't want to get a job and he ended up doing street cleaning until he realised that getting paid a real wage was a better idea than workfare.
There really is no concept of "can't work", the idea of it is an anathema. There simply exists no valid reason other than medically diagnosed disability.
You write as if I'm always starting from the wrong place! I don't think I do and I'm not doing here. I get the view you're expressing, if the alternative is utter penury people will get off their fat arses and work, so you'd favour a system where that IS the alternative. Needless to say I find that unpalatable, but I was just curious as to whether any rich country truly has such a 'devil take the hindmost' system (or lack of, rather). And you mentioned Switzerland so I wanted to probe a bit to see if it's actually the case that they have no backstop welfare safety net. So, they do but only for disability then, is what you're saying. Otherwise it's workfare. Ok. But what about single parents? What about mental illness? What about where your wages put you below the poverty line? They must have these issues, even if they are rich and ordered and small.
Earnings are so high in Switzerland that working poverty isn't an issue, even a cleaner gets paid ~25/h, that's full time income of 52k francs per year. Low income is a lifestyle choice in Switzerland and there isn't really a safety net for poor life choices. In work benefits don't exist either, the Swiss benefits system is very generous when you need it but the circumstances to qualify are very limited. Unemployment is one of them and even then there is a qualification period if the unemployment is by choice (I think it's 90 days from what my mother in law was saying). It's only on being sacked or redundancy that a person immediately qualifies for unemployment support.
If we could lift the Swiss welfare system wholesale and apply it to the UK we'd all be better off.
We wouldn't as we are not a tax haven like they are.
As I have also posted their welfare system is not a million miles from ours anyway now, indeed it is probably closer to ours than it is to the extremes of the Nordic countries and US welfare systems. Plus JSA is contributory now based on NI contributions
You have no idea what you're talking about unemployment benefits in the UK amount to nothing, the majority of benefits are housing benefits and tax credits given to people who work.
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
Ms
If you ever got a teacher with Ms, you knew you were in for a long year...
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
Ms
If you ever got a teacher with Ms, you knew you were in for a long year...
I once had a Ms who I called Miss on the first day, she sharply retorted "Mzz!"
From then on I always used "Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz", which I could carry on until I got her attention.
I’ve generally found it bureaucratic, badly-maintained, incurious, but staffed by genuine heroes and there when needed.
I don’t know how it compares globally, but coincidentally I was looking at “perceptions of healthcare quality” across the OECD, and the U.K. tends to come lower down.
France and Switzerland seem to be at the top.
We seem to have given up on reform since Lansley’s ill-fated measures - the only solution is now just to funnel cash into it.
Switzerland has got a fully insurance based system with subsidised access for low income people. Switzerland doesn't have any concept of long term unemployment or living off the welfare state so ultimately the state doesn't need to fund healthcare and welfare for the "won't work" millions we have in the UK claiming ill health.
What happens if a Swiss person can't work then? How do they get by?
They get whatever job they can. There's not really a concept of "can't work". At least not in my experience of living there. The jobs all pay enough that there really isn't very much of a "can't work" attitude. In terms of healthcare there is a provision for low income people but it's a subsidy. Unemployment in Switzerland is mostly incidental rather than structural. They also don't have in working benefits, no housing benefit and generally a very tiny welfare state. Retirement saving is done on an individual basis too and there really isn't a way to avoid it.
It's a very rich and ordered country, and quite a small one, so I can imagine they don't have the poverty issues we do, but there must be people there who, for one reason or another, can't work, or can only work part/time, and who haven't racked up the contributions they need to access state support. Just wondering what happens with such people in a so-called "contributory" benefits system. I've always kind of assumed it's not the whole story. That if you truly haven't a job and have no savings, then regardless of age or employment history, or your attitude, the state will help you out. Or at least there'll be a mechanism for it. In the prosperous West, I mean, of which Switzerland is very much a part. I see hyufd mentioning "emergency support" so maybe that's it.
Again, you're starting from the wrong place. Obviously for people with disabilities etc... there is care available but there just isn't a "can't work" attitude. That is something the UK enables with a non-contributory benefits system. The emergency support is basically a nothing and is essentially a workfare option, the state will make you work for your emergency support. My brother-in-law who is a lazy git ended up going down that route because he didn't want to get a job and he ended up doing street cleaning until he realised that getting paid a real wage was a better idea than workfare.
There really is no concept of "can't work", the idea of it is an anathema. There simply exists no valid reason other than medically diagnosed disability.
You write as if I'm always starting from the wrong place! I don't think I do and I'm not doing here. I get the view you're expressing, if the alternative is utter penury people will get off their fat arses and work, so you'd favour a system where that IS the alternative. Needless to say I find that unpalatable, but I was just curious as to whether any rich country truly has such a 'devil take the hindmost' system (or lack of, rather). And you mentioned Switzerland so I wanted to probe a bit to see if it's actually the case that they have no backstop welfare safety net. So, they do but only for disability then, is what you're saying. Otherwise it's workfare. Ok. But what about single parents? What about mental illness? What about where your wages put you below the poverty line? They must have these issues, even if they are rich and ordered and small.
Earnings are so high in Switzerland that working poverty isn't an issue, even a cleaner gets paid ~25/h, that's full time income of 52k francs per year. Low income is a lifestyle choice in Switzerland and there isn't really a safety net for poor life choices. In work benefits don't exist either, the Swiss benefits system is very generous when you need it but the circumstances to qualify are very limited. Unemployment is one of them and even then there is a qualification period if the unemployment is by choice (I think it's 90 days from what my mother in law was saying). It's only on being sacked or redundancy that a person immediately qualifies for unemployment support.
If we could lift the Swiss welfare system wholesale and apply it to the UK we'd all be better off.
We wouldn't as we are not a tax haven like they are.
As I have also posted their welfare system is not a million miles from ours anyway now, indeed it is probably closer to ours than it is to the extremes of the Nordic countries and US welfare systems. Plus JSA is contributory now based on NI contributions
You have no idea what you're talking about unemployment benefits in the UK amount to nothing, the majority of benefits are housing benefits and tax credits given to people who work.
The only unemployment benefits you can claim in the UK if able bodied ie JSA are contributory based on NI contributions just as Swiss unemployment benefits are contributory. £74.50 a week JSA is also not nothing.
Otherwise we have UC as Switzerland has emergency assistance. Switzerland also pays housing costs in full for those in receipt of social assistance.
Switzerland has an even higher minimum wage than we do at 19 Franks an hour for those in work.
Foodyism is just another way to spit in the face of the poor.
Ha ha you're poor - if only you learnt how to Cook you would be eating much better.
What's your problem? Tesco mince: £3/kg. Tesco salmon: £10-20/kg.
Oh.
Broccoli is cheap though.
Meat from your local butcher is likely to be 10x better than anything you buy at a supermarket... and probably cheaper.
The local butcher closes at like 4:30pm. The supermarket is open 24/7 pretty much. Obviously the local butcher does not get my business.
Our local butcher has shifted his hours and now opens more European style in the morning and then again in the evening. That way he catches the two busy periods of the day. I also think he owns the freehold of his shop and it's a family business so the rules are different for them than they are for most others. I'll have a chat to him tomorrow and see how he's getting on with it, I know he only started it since everyone's going back to work.
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
Ms
If you ever got a teacher with Ms, you knew you were in for a long year...
My favourite teacher at school was a Mlle
Oh, we had a student Mlle for one term and she was very popular...
Why couldn't the climate summit have been conducted online?
I thought until yesterday that the added investment in fuel to get there paid off because of the added gravitas of in person meetings, but I can't for the life of me see any difference between Johnson and Modi being there in person vs Queenie and Xi being remote. If we have had 26 of these things that's ample. If we really need annual COPs three out of four can surely be virtual, with an actual one in Olympic or world Cup years.
BJ wouldn't have been able to have his tiny dick tantrum about plastering the event in Union flags and not wanting to see Sturgeon anywhere near it though.
Glasgow was chosen to make you feel important and loved yet I detect no great change in your attitude, tud. May as well have had it in the Cotswolds, seems to me.
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
Ms
If you ever got a teacher with Ms, you knew you were in for a long year...
I once had a Ms who I called Miss on the first day, she sharply retorted "Mzz!"
From then on I always used "Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz", which I could carry on until I got her attention.
I don't think she liked me much.
I'm confused by this. Weren't all female teachers actually addressed as 'miss' (if that was the only part, like 'sir', married or unmarried? We had Miss X, Ms Y and Mrs Z (not real names in case of other smartarses like me) and they were addressed either as 'Miss X', 'Ms Y', 'Mrs Z' or, for any of them, 'Miss' without the X, Y or Z. For male teachers it was either Mr A, Mr B or simply 'sir' (other names when out of earshot, obviously). I guess 'madam' might have been more correct, but I don't remember anyone using that. Bog standard comp, mid 90s.
I’ve generally found it bureaucratic, badly-maintained, incurious, but staffed by genuine heroes and there when needed.
I don’t know how it compares globally, but coincidentally I was looking at “perceptions of healthcare quality” across the OECD, and the U.K. tends to come lower down.
France and Switzerland seem to be at the top.
We seem to have given up on reform since Lansley’s ill-fated measures - the only solution is now just to funnel cash into it.
Switzerland has got a fully insurance based system with subsidised access for low income people. Switzerland doesn't have any concept of long term unemployment or living off the welfare state so ultimately the state doesn't need to fund healthcare and welfare for the "won't work" millions we have in the UK claiming ill health.
What happens if a Swiss person can't work then? How do they get by?
They get whatever job they can. There's not really a concept of "can't work". At least not in my experience of living there. The jobs all pay enough that there really isn't very much of a "can't work" attitude. In terms of healthcare there is a provision for low income people but it's a subsidy. Unemployment in Switzerland is mostly incidental rather than structural. They also don't have in working benefits, no housing benefit and generally a very tiny welfare state. Retirement saving is done on an individual basis too and there really isn't a way to avoid it.
It's a very rich and ordered country, and quite a small one, so I can imagine they don't have the poverty issues we do, but there must be people there who, for one reason or another, can't work, or can only work part/time, and who haven't racked up the contributions they need to access state support. Just wondering what happens with such people in a so-called "contributory" benefits system. I've always kind of assumed it's not the whole story. That if you truly haven't a job and have no savings, then regardless of age or employment history, or your attitude, the state will help you out. Or at least there'll be a mechanism for it. In the prosperous West, I mean, of which Switzerland is very much a part. I see hyufd mentioning "emergency support" so maybe that's it.
Again, you're starting from the wrong place. Obviously for people with disabilities etc... there is care available but there just isn't a "can't work" attitude. That is something the UK enables with a non-contributory benefits system. The emergency support is basically a nothing and is essentially a workfare option, the state will make you work for your emergency support. My brother-in-law who is a lazy git ended up going down that route because he didn't want to get a job and he ended up doing street cleaning until he realised that getting paid a real wage was a better idea than workfare.
There really is no concept of "can't work", the idea of it is an anathema. There simply exists no valid reason other than medically diagnosed disability.
You write as if I'm always starting from the wrong place! I don't think I do and I'm not doing here. I get the view you're expressing, if the alternative is utter penury people will get off their fat arses and work, so you'd favour a system where that IS the alternative. Needless to say I find that unpalatable, but I was just curious as to whether any rich country truly has such a 'devil take the hindmost' system (or lack of, rather). And you mentioned Switzerland so I wanted to probe a bit to see if it's actually the case that they have no backstop welfare safety net. So, they do but only for disability then, is what you're saying. Otherwise it's workfare. Ok. But what about single parents? What about mental illness? What about where your wages put you below the poverty line? They must have these issues, even if they are rich and ordered and small.
Again there is not much difference between them and us anyway. Swiss contributory benefits are actually higher than our contributory JSA. Yes they have a workfare style emergency support but here too now UC is not just given away, you have to be actively looking for jobs and going on training courses to continue to get it.
The USA, where if you have not contributed enough in unemployment insurance for time limited unemployment benefits you get nothing other than foodstamps (which also have a workfare requirement to receive), is tougher than both.
On the other hand if you wanted to really live off welfare you would be better off going to Sweden or Finland than the UK
You and Max not seeing this quite the same way. Thanks to both. I think I'm left with my original assumption in place - that there is a safety net for people in real hardship.
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
Plus you add in Gender Fluidity when a Person's gender can change or fluctuate over time. I got caught at work one time when I was using the wrong pronouns as I wasn't aware they had changed again.
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
Plus you add in Gender Fluidity when a Person's gender can change or fluctuate over time. I got caught at work one time when I was using the wrong pronouns as I wasn't aware they had changed again.
Again? Surely you lose the right to be offended at how you're referred to once you start playing the okie cokie with it.
From the White House pool report on @POTUS journey from Edinburgh to Glasgow: ‘At one point when we were still on smaller country roads, a large, naked Scottish man stood in his front window taking a picture of the motorcade with his phone.’ https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1455550297984671747?s=20
How do we know he was Scottish? Could have been Swedish, for instance.
Do we know any Swedish Scots?.....
That's the wrong way round!
Ah yes sorry, Scottish Swedes... though that sounds somehow slightly insulting.
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
Ms
If you ever got a teacher with Ms, you knew you were in for a long year...
I once had a Ms who I called Miss on the first day, she sharply retorted "Mzz!"
From then on I always used "Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz", which I could carry on until I got her attention.
I don't think she liked me much.
I'm confused by this. Weren't all female teachers actually addressed as 'miss' (if that was the only part, like 'sir', married or unmarried? We had Miss X, Ms Y and Mrs Z (not real names in case of other smartarses like me) and they were addressed either as 'Miss X', 'Ms Y', 'Mrs Z' or, for any of them, 'Miss' without the X, Y or Z. For male teachers it was either Mr A, Mr B or simply 'sir' (other names when out of earshot, obviously). I guess 'madam' might have been more correct, but I don't remember anyone using that. Bog standard comp, mid 90s.
I'm confused by your post. All the female teachers at my bog standard comp, mid 90's were either Miss or Mrs X.
All the male teachers were Mr X but were known amongst the pupils as Mannie X (bog standard comp, mid 90s, NE Scotland)
As an early eccentric I never referred to teachers as "Mannie" but I must admit that I did call my physics teacher Doc Hammy (Dr Hamilton) despite him wanting to be known as "Doc"
Went past a protest in George Square. Have to say it looked pretty pathetic.
I was surprised to see that Greta Thunberg was singing 'you can shove your climate crisis up your a***'.
Are you sure it wasn’t “you cannae shove your granny off the bus” ?
This passes for high culture in Glasgow.
I applaud the audacity of a Dundonian opining on what passes for high culture.
I do wonder sometimes, in the event of Scottish independence and the eventual* diminishing of the shared enemy, how long it would take for Scotland to descend into civil war.
(God help England too, if London were ever to secede. We'd remember how much the regions hate each other)
*Sure, this might never happen - we're five years on from the Brexit referendum and the EU is still the bogeyman for some Eng Nats.
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
Ms
If you ever got a teacher with Ms, you knew you were in for a long year...
I once had a Ms who I called Miss on the first day, she sharply retorted "Mzz!"
From then on I always used "Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz", which I could carry on until I got her attention.
I don't think she liked me much.
I'm confused by this. Weren't all female teachers actually addressed as 'miss' (if that was the only part, like 'sir', married or unmarried? We had Miss X, Ms Y and Mrs Z (not real names in case of other smartarses like me) and they were addressed either as 'Miss X', 'Ms Y', 'Mrs Z' or, for any of them, 'Miss' without the X, Y or Z. For male teachers it was either Mr A, Mr B or simply 'sir' (other names when out of earshot, obviously). I guess 'madam' might have been more correct, but I don't remember anyone using that. Bog standard comp, mid 90s.
I'm confused by your post. All the female teachers at my bog standard comp, mid 90's were either Miss or Mrs X.
All the male teachers were Mr X but were known amongst the pupils as Mannie X (bog standard comp, mid 90s, NE Scotland)
As an early eccentric I never referred to teachers as "Mannie" but I must admit that I did call my physics teacher Doc Hammy (Dr Hamilton) despite him wanting to be known as "Doc"
You were eccentric?
All the other pupils referred to male teachers as Mannie X, except for me; so, yes
The gender pronoun debate - people stating they’re he/him, she/her on their profile/CV etc… is it really that different from the time not so long ago where everyone was known as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Master?
The main difference is that the Miss/Mrs distinction tells people a woman's marital status, which doesn't happen with men, who all became Mr once reaching adulthood.
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
Ms
If you ever got a teacher with Ms, you knew you were in for a long year...
I once had a Ms who I called Miss on the first day, she sharply retorted "Mzz!"
From then on I always used "Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz", which I could carry on until I got her attention.
I don't think she liked me much.
I'm confused by this. Weren't all female teachers actually addressed as 'miss' (if that was the only part, like 'sir', married or unmarried? We had Miss X, Ms Y and Mrs Z (not real names in case of other smartarses like me) and they were addressed either as 'Miss X', 'Ms Y', 'Mrs Z' or, for any of them, 'Miss' without the X, Y or Z. For male teachers it was either Mr A, Mr B or simply 'sir' (other names when out of earshot, obviously). I guess 'madam' might have been more correct, but I don't remember anyone using that. Bog standard comp, mid 90s.
I'm confused by your post. All the female teachers at my bog standard comp, mid 90's were either Miss or Mrs X.
All the male teachers were Mr X but were known amongst the pupils as Mannie X (bog standard comp, mid 90s, NE Scotland)
As an early eccentric I never referred to teachers as "Mannie" but I must admit that I did call my physics teacher Doc Hammy (Dr Hamilton) despite him wanting to be known as "Doc"
Just goes to show how easily those of us with a bog standard comp education get confused, I guess
Someone with a good education will come along and explain it all to us in a minute (although the explanation might involve masters and fags).
Wor Lass was able to book a booster appointment this morning. About a week after the 6 month mark. I appreciate that you can now just turn up at some vaccination centres, but this way she should avoid any unnecessary queuing and doesn't need to head into Bradford city centre.
Late December before it will be my turn unless they reduce the interval.
For some reason it reminds me of reviews a review of the Jackie Chan film, The Foreigner, where the reviewer spent half the review complaining that it was stereotyping to suggest the IRA was into terrorism and that Pierce Brosnan had a fake Irish accent.
I’ve generally found it bureaucratic, badly-maintained, incurious, but staffed by genuine heroes and there when needed.
I don’t know how it compares globally, but coincidentally I was looking at “perceptions of healthcare quality” across the OECD, and the U.K. tends to come lower down.
France and Switzerland seem to be at the top.
We seem to have given up on reform since Lansley’s ill-fated measures - the only solution is now just to funnel cash into it.
Switzerland has got a fully insurance based system with subsidised access for low income people. Switzerland doesn't have any concept of long term unemployment or living off the welfare state so ultimately the state doesn't need to fund healthcare and welfare for the "won't work" millions we have in the UK claiming ill health.
Swiss healthcare costs are some of the highest in the world.
Swiss government spends $3,100/person vs. $3,400/person in UK.
But then Swiss individuals pay $6,800/person on top of that privately vs. $900/person in the UK.
Pretty meaningless if you don't look at it as a percentage of GDP. All told the Swiss spend 11.3% of their GDP on healthcare. Compared to 11.1% for France and 11.7% for Germany. The US spends 16.8%.
The key thing is that Switzerland spends a lot more than the UK. The figures I have are 11.9% of GDP vs 10.0% for UK.
The point is that in Switzerland middle income people aren't disincentivised from purchasing private healthcare (indeed, it is a requirement) which means the state spending is targeted towards those who need it and is very high quality. Do you really believe that if the NHS got 12% of GDP we'd suddenly have Swiss standard healthcare? I've experienced both systems and the gap is, IMO, unbridgeable because the problem isn't money.
A ~20% rise in healthcare spending would definitely buy us a much better system with shorter waiting lists etc. But Switzerland is a wealthier country, so 12% of our GDP doesn't necessarily buy what 12% of their GDP buys.
For some reason it reminds me of reviews a review of the Jackie Chan film, The Foreigner, where the reviewer spent half the review complaining that it was stereotyping to suggest the IRA was into terrorism and that Pierce Brosnan had a fake Irish accent.
Well, we now know why the JCVI advice on immunising teens was so at variance with every other country.
For whatever reason, they assumed only a 4.2% attack rate (since the date of this meeting, closer to 40% of those in this age group have been infected than 4.2%), so the number of infections averted by vaccination would be only a few percent of teens (assumed to be 3.6 per 100 teens, with a vaccine efficacy of 85% and attack rate of 4.2%).
The ten-fold higher attack rate (so far) in teens makes the balance (which was actually pretty strongly in benefit of vaccination) literally an order of magnitude stronger. It is impossible to avoid concluding that the JCVI made a big mistake here by taking a very wrong input assumption.
For some reason it reminds me of reviews a review of the Jackie Chan film, The Foreigner, where the reviewer spent half the review complaining that it was stereotyping to suggest the IRA was into terrorism and that Pierce Brosnan had a fake Irish accent.
That film is good fun.
The scene where Bronsan's Gerry Adams impression *knnecaps* the Slab Murphy character was a zinger...
Whoever wrote it peppered the script with hilarious references like that to various real characters and their doings.
In Iraq, the initial capture and occupation of Basra, entered into with soft hats and the self-congratulatory confidence of an Army that believed it led the world in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, ended in a humiliating negotiated withdrawal of British forces to the edge of the city, where, pinned down by constant bombardment by the Shia militias who now ran the city, they lost all capacity to exert their influence.
The Americans, distinctly unimpressed at the failure of the British officers, were forced to help Iraqi forces retake the city in 2008’s Charge of the Knights operation, a humiliation for Britain. “This damaged the reputation of British forces with the US and the Iraqis and inflicted major dents in British military self-confidence,” Barry notes. Akam is less stoic, describing it as ”an acute and lasting humiliation to the British Army”, which “will linger and follow the troops halfway around the world to Afghanistan”.
Barry observes: “The US government’s decision to invade Iraq must stand as the worst military decision of the 21st century. It was a military strategic folly on a level equal to that of Napoleon’s 1812 attack on Russia and Hitler’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union.” The failure, then, was ultimately a political one, of British politicians blindly following their American patrons into unwinnable wars.
Perhaps the Army’s capacity to win the next war, like the British state’s to weather the next crisis, would be better served by generals finding the courage, when necessary, to tell politicians that some things simply can’t, or shouldn’t be done.
Interesting you post this (why now out of interest).
It is absolutely the case and there have been several books on the subject already - Losing Small Wars/Ledwidge, Punching Below our Weight/Ledwidge, The Good War/Fairweather, A War of Choice/Fairweather, High Command/Christopher Elliott, A Million Bullets/Fergusson.
The interesting timing is apropos the discussion of the NHS whereby the gross failings of the institution shouldn't be mixed up with the dedication and performance of the individuals.
The British army seem to be pretty good at making some really bad tactical decisions. Much of the time they are either lucky or skilful enough to get themselves out of it but too often they are not.
During lockdown I watched a series of talks and discussions by military men hosted by the National Army Museum. One of these was between General Sir Michael Rose (Command, 22 SAS) and Major General Julian Thompson (Command, as a Brigadier, 3 Commando Brigade) on the Falklands land campaign and what went wrong. It is really scary understanding how many complete clusters there were during that campaign far beyond those that cost lives. Of course the old adage of no plan surviving first contact with the enemy has to be borne in mind but they were pretty scathing about some of the decisions being made at Northwood 8,000 miles away.
Well, we now know why the JCVI advice on immunising teens was so at variance with every other country.
For whatever reason, they assumed only a 4.2% attack rate (since the date of this meeting, closer to 40% of those in this age group have been infected than 4.2%), so the number of infections averted by vaccination would be only a few percent of teens (assumed to be 3.6 per 100 teens, with a vaccine efficacy of 85% and attack rate of 4.2%).
The ten-fold higher attack rate (so far) in teens makes the balance (which was actually pretty strongly in benefit of vaccination) literally an order of magnitude stronger. It is impossible to avoid concluding that the JCVI made a big mistake here by taking a very wrong input assumption.
To create top notch stupidity, you need a number of very intelligent people.
Well, we now know why the JCVI advice on immunising teens was so at variance with every other country.
For whatever reason, they assumed only a 4.2% attack rate (since the date of this meeting, closer to 40% of those in this age group have been infected than 4.2%), so the number of infections averted by vaccination would be only a few percent of teens (assumed to be 3.6 per 100 teens, with a vaccine efficacy of 85% and attack rate of 4.2%).
The ten-fold higher attack rate (so far) in teens makes the balance (which was actually pretty strongly in benefit of vaccination) literally an order of magnitude stronger. It is impossible to avoid concluding that the JCVI made a big mistake here by taking a very wrong input assumption.
To create top notch stupidity, you need a number of very intelligent people.
One thing I don't get. Attack rates are quoted but never mention the period of time in question. Or is there some assumption I am missing.
In first year at high school our form teacher was Miss C. In second year it was Mrs T.
Same teacher!
If she had just been Ms C throughout it would have been a lot easier.
We used to say "Yes Miss" to female teachers, regardless of whether they were a Miss or Mrs. No Ms teachers back then in our school.
For male teachers it was "Yes Sir".
We had a Botany teacher in the Lower VIth named Mrs X. Wore a wedding ring. She ‘took up’ with one of the male teachers ….. Mr Z …..from the Latin department and they were a feature around the quieter corners of the establishment. After the Easter break she announced that she was now Mrs Z.
Quite a thing in a traditional boys Grammar School in the 50’s.
Well, we now know why the JCVI advice on immunising teens was so at variance with every other country.
For whatever reason, they assumed only a 4.2% attack rate (since the date of this meeting, closer to 40% of those in this age group have been infected than 4.2%), so the number of infections averted by vaccination would be only a few percent of teens (assumed to be 3.6 per 100 teens, with a vaccine efficacy of 85% and attack rate of 4.2%).
The ten-fold higher attack rate (so far) in teens makes the balance (which was actually pretty strongly in benefit of vaccination) literally an order of magnitude stronger. It is impossible to avoid concluding that the JCVI made a big mistake here by taking a very wrong input assumption.
To create top notch stupidity, you need a number of very intelligent people.
One thing I don't get. Attack rates are quoted but never mention the period of time in question. Or is there some assumption I am missing.
In Iraq, the initial capture and occupation of Basra, entered into with soft hats and the self-congratulatory confidence of an Army that believed it led the world in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, ended in a humiliating negotiated withdrawal of British forces to the edge of the city, where, pinned down by constant bombardment by the Shia militias who now ran the city, they lost all capacity to exert their influence.
The Americans, distinctly unimpressed at the failure of the British officers, were forced to help Iraqi forces retake the city in 2008’s Charge of the Knights operation, a humiliation for Britain. “This damaged the reputation of British forces with the US and the Iraqis and inflicted major dents in British military self-confidence,” Barry notes. Akam is less stoic, describing it as ”an acute and lasting humiliation to the British Army”, which “will linger and follow the troops halfway around the world to Afghanistan”.
Barry observes: “The US government’s decision to invade Iraq must stand as the worst military decision of the 21st century. It was a military strategic folly on a level equal to that of Napoleon’s 1812 attack on Russia and Hitler’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union.” The failure, then, was ultimately a political one, of British politicians blindly following their American patrons into unwinnable wars.
Perhaps the Army’s capacity to win the next war, like the British state’s to weather the next crisis, would be better served by generals finding the courage, when necessary, to tell politicians that some things simply can’t, or shouldn’t be done.
Interesting you post this (why now out of interest).
It is absolutely the case and there have been several books on the subject already - Losing Small Wars/Ledwidge, Punching Below our Weight/Ledwidge, The Good War/Fairweather, A War of Choice/Fairweather, High Command/Christopher Elliott, A Million Bullets/Fergusson.
The interesting timing is apropos the discussion of the NHS whereby the gross failings of the institution shouldn't be mixed up with the dedication and performance of the individuals.
The British army seem to be pretty good at making some really bad tactical decisions. Much of the time they are either lucky or skilful enough to get themselves out of it but too often they are not.
During lockdown I watched a series of talks and discussions by military men hosted by the National Army Museum. One of these was between General Sir Michael Rose (Command, 22 SAS) and Major General Julian Thompson (Command, as a Brigadier, 3 Commando Brigade) on the Falklands land campaign and what went wrong. It is really scary understanding how many complete clusters there were during that campaign far beyond those that cost lives. Of course the old adage of no plan surviving first contact with the enemy has to be borne in mind but they were pretty scathing about some of the decisions being made at Northwood 8,000 miles away.
RAIB have released a statement on the Salisbury train crash. It appears one train was passing the junction, whilst another could not stop, passed a signal at danger, and sideswiped the other train. They both then continued into the tunnel.
We don't know for sure, but 'Leaves on the line' is more than a joke. Time to cut down all those lineside trees ...
Comments
Would we see that here? Effing unlikely. More likely we'd endure the spectacle of parents asking the place whether they have any 'children's food'.
I'm talking about decades of history here, nothing to do with the SNP. Labour voters would have exactly the same reaction, as would Unionist (Conservative post 1950s) voters. Just differed as tyo whether they approved or not.
And you really did not want to risk your life crossing the road in those circumstances.
Otherwise you are just making a statement of support or allegiance - which is, as you say, another form of virtue signalling.
'Diners poisoned by sewage at Whitstable oyster festival'
https://tinyurl.com/3mp8sz3w
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1455543074646544387?t=0hQRCqlYP7M3BRncdqj8mQ&s=19
Youngkin has got this.
Overall turnout up. Turnout down in college towns.
"Once in a generation" was uttered hundreds of times by all sorts of SNP Types in 2014
The USA, where if you have not contributed enough in unemployment insurance for time limited unemployment benefits you get nothing other than foodstamps (which also have a workfare requirement to receive), is tougher than both.
On the other hand if you wanted to really live off welfare you would be better off going to Sweden or Finland than the UK
If we could lift the Swiss welfare system wholesale and apply it to the UK we'd all be better off.
Edit: although even that possibly is signalling the virtue of knowing when you're beat.
Grim, although I'd still eat oysters with a passion. The example you cite is the exception, not the rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Dickson
The equivalent for pronouns would be people using his/hers/theirs if they were married.
As I have also posted their welfare system is not a million miles from ours anyway now, indeed it is probably closer to ours than it is to the extremes of the Nordic countries and US welfare systems. Plus JSA is contributory now based on NI contributions
If you ever got a teacher with Ms, you knew you were in for a long year...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Alpha
(Maybe the next one will be generation Alba and vote 'Yes')
From then on I always used "Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz", which I could carry on until I got her attention.
I don't think she liked me much.
Otherwise we have UC as Switzerland has emergency assistance. Switzerland also pays housing costs in full for those in receipt of social assistance.
Switzerland has an even higher minimum wage than we do at 19 Franks an hour for those in work.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/09/uk-chooses-glasgow-host-major-un-climate-change-summit
But if it ends up a superspreader event, like Cornwall ...
"If you've got nothing nice to say, say nothing."
My mum's always saying this. Not that she complies with it. You should hear her rip into Boris Johnson. It makes me proud.
Hope my cpty wasn't you laying off -
This passes for high culture in Glasgow.
This is a photo The Times has. Would be a great caption competition!
https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1455441226094858245
This one isn't bad either.
Sorry if I'm late.
All the male teachers were Mr X but were known amongst the pupils as Mannie X (bog standard comp, mid 90s, NE Scotland)
As an early eccentric I never referred to teachers as "Mannie" but I must admit that I did call my physics teacher Doc Hammy (Dr Hamilton) despite him wanting to be known as "Doc"
(God help England too, if London were ever to secede. We'd remember how much the regions hate each other)
*Sure, this might never happen - we're five years on from the Brexit referendum and the EU is still the bogeyman for some Eng Nats.
https://www.alamy.com/statue-of-desperate-dan-on-the-high-street-dundee-scotland-uk-image447922338.html
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/nov/02/titania-mcgrath-mxnifesto-review-twitter-activist-andrew-doyle-alice-marshall
Someone with a good education will come along and explain it all to us in a minute (although the explanation might involve masters and fags).
https://twitter.com/SamuelPotier/status/1455555323637473281
Same teacher!
If she had just been Ms C throughout it would have been a lot easier.
We used to say "Yes Miss" to female teachers, regardless of whether they were a Miss or Mrs. No Ms teachers back then in our school.
For male teachers it was "Yes Sir".
Wor Lass was able to book a booster appointment this morning. About a week after the 6 month mark. I appreciate that you can now just turn up at some vaccination centres, but this way she should avoid any unnecessary queuing and doesn't need to head into Bradford city centre.
Late December before it will be my turn unless they reduce the interval.
But Switzerland is a wealthier country, so 12% of our GDP doesn't necessarily buy what 12% of their GDP buys.
This idea that Switzerland targets its spending well does not fit with the facts -> they have very high out of pocket costs and something like 1 in 5 forego medical consultation because of cost.
https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-2017_health_glance-2017-en#page92
For whatever reason, they assumed only a 4.2% attack rate (since the date of this meeting, closer to 40% of those in this age group have been infected than 4.2%), so the number of infections averted by vaccination would be only a few percent of teens (assumed to be 3.6 per 100 teens, with a vaccine efficacy of 85% and attack rate of 4.2%).
Minutes here: https://app.box.com/s/iddfb4ppwkmtjusir2tc/file/878924815115
The ten-fold higher attack rate (so far) in teens makes the balance (which was actually pretty strongly in benefit of vaccination) literally an order of magnitude stronger. It is impossible to avoid concluding that the JCVI made a big mistake here by taking a very wrong input assumption.
Fair play, Macron saw his opportunity and took it.
#COP26
https://twitter.com/JoosyJew/status/1455469050683961354
Whoever wrote it peppered the script with hilarious references like that to various real characters and their doings.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joe-biden-flashed-large-naked-25359851
Quite a thing in a traditional boys Grammar School in the 50’s.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1455567544006361093?s=20
We don't know for sure, but 'Leaves on the line' is more than a joke. Time to cut down all those lineside trees ...