Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
Nah where are those stats from.
The usual metric is "influenza and pneumonia" with a run/death rate of around 30,000/year pre-Covid.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
He knows his base hate masks. I took a train in today, it's notable that people coming in from Bexley, Dartford etc are much less likely to be wearing masks, especially the older white man-spreading type that I would peg as likely Johnson supporters (based on polling cross-tabs). The inner London commuters from solid Labour seats are mostly masked.
Interesting - was around Piccadilly last Saturday. The only people wearing masks indoors (like me), were the older groups (40s and above), and those who were Korean, Chinese & Japanese.
The level of non-compliance on the Tube was extremely high.
I think rush hour compliance is better than weekend which is better than late night, probably reflecting both demographics and degree of overcrowding. Personally I wear a mask indoors most of the time, except where I know there is regular testing in place like at work or eg when I went to the theatre recently, and not at home obvs.
Why do you wear a mask indoors most of the time? Are you not double vaxxed? Or do you have waning immunity?
To protect other people.
Fair enough, but it is highly unlikely you are infectious if you are double jabbed and have no symptoms
I have stopped wearing a mask (tho I might do it again, for personal protection, as I wait for my Booster). We have to get beyond the mentality of fear
I have a silk neck gaiter, which I wear mainly because it looks cool, like I am a war correspondent just back from Kabul, but I slip it over my nose if I am surrounded by the paranoid
I agree. I also test twice a week for work. So it's highly unlikely I would infect anyone. But my aversion to inadvertently infecting someone vulnerable is extremely high and I also feel like seeing people wearing masks in those confined spaces may reassure the vulnerable that others are looking out for them and allow them to participate more in society. It doesn't feel like a massive sacrifice either. Also I don't really want to catch Covid myself even though in all likelihood it would be a mild infection. It could disrupt my kids' schooling. And I could get Long Covid. So it makes sense to take small steps to avoid getting it if possible. I don't really know why masks are so totemic for some people.
Masks are fucking horrible. A blight on human life. It's an ominous sign that someone relatively sensible like you just shrugs and accepts them. They must absolutely NOT be normalised, and we have to bin them ASAP if not yesterday
For a start they are really really bad for deaf people, and for autistic people. They are just BAD. Human smiles given and received make daily life sweeter, a billion times a day. Give us back our smiles
I guess I just don't really find them such an imposition. You must have a lot more random people smiling at you than I do if that's the deal breaker for you. PS "relatively sensible"? Thanks, I'll take that. 😉
Leon is right on this, though. Given that smiling and nonverbal feedback is the very heart of human conversation, masks are a huge imposition. And he is also right, of course, that they seriously afflict the lives of the deaf, partially deaf and autistic. I suspect evidence will soon emerge that they affect young children's socialisation too: there is a reason why we have evolved to have faces – and face each other.
I do worry about the deaf. I doubt children will be affected much by not seeing the mouth of random adults on the bus, if primary caregivers at school and home aren't wearing them. Mask wearing on public transport is normal in places like Japan and I am not aware of any long term negative impact on child development.
Japan is hardly a model society. Who knows whether mask wearing has contributed to their current lack of kids. I like to see a girl's face before I start chatting to her, difficult to do if everyone's wearing a bloody mask. I think subconsciously a mask also sends the "this person is closed for business" message, loads of East Asian countries are struggling with low birth rates and record low marriages. Who knows how much not seeing each other's faces has contributed to it?
Mask wearing on public transport causes low birth rates? This is the best post I've read on PB for years. By "best", I mean, "raised the biggest laugh".
No, but when everyone around you is a potential disease carrier how much less likely are you to generally chat to a stranger? We know that East Asian countries suffer massively from a lack of socialising (and ultimately sex). Again, I'm not saying that masks are causing it at all, I'm just not ruling them out as a contributing factor. Masks inherently make everyone around you a potentially deadly hostile, that changes the nature of how we treat each other. Who's to say it isn't a factor in the low birth rate in East Asia?
But I wonder if mask-wearing is actually another symptom of a greater crisis in human interaction, in these countries, rather than a partial cause of it
The most masked-up nations in western Europe are Spain and Italy
Yes, maybe a symptom rather than cause? Either way it is interesting that the mask fascists are so keen to deny that masks cause a reduction in socialising. Even passing off social science as legitimate!
Sadiq Khan is the politician for people who think Keir Starmer is too decisive and attention-grabby.
Without Trump to have a go at he is invisible. Not what a great city like London needs. He has been Mayor for 5 1/2 years, what has he achieved?
Nothing. Literally nothing. He’s a bed-blocker.
He is almost preternaturally ineffective and banal. What has he done? Cancelled things. Prohibited other things. That's it. He's a nullity. A big silly void. To think Labour once entertained the idea of him as a leader, FFS.
He hasn't got the charisma to be a mediocre junior minister. I wonder what he will do next, in that light
He is so bad that two highly obnoxious characters - the first an anti-semite, the second an oafish clown - made far better mayors than he.
Yes, he's been exposed in office, and he's also shown that being a good London mayor is not as easy as it looks. You need to be loud and visible with a dash of *charm* and populism. The common touch helps as well. Ken and Boris both had these gifts, Khan has none of them
It looks like we will be spared Khan as Labour leader (let alone PM: imagine). He's down with Jess Philips and Rosena Allin-Khan in the next leader betting. Not going to happen
It’s pretty sick. The Belarus government seems to be not simply facilitating, but encouraging migrants, whom they then herd to the border. The Poles push back any who cross - and many will die this winter.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
The fact he’s a bellend is nothing to do with his religion. It’s like people criticising him for some of the people he acted for in his legal role. He did nothing wrong at all. It’s just cheap dog whistle. It also gets him off the hook for his ineptitude.
It's a comfort blanket for the left to ascribe criticism of someone useless to racism as it means they needn't face the reality that the person is useless.
Then again, he was elected MoL so good for him. In my view the less most politicians do the better.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
Nah where are those stats from.
The usual metric is "influenza and pneumonia" with a run/death rate of around 30,000/year pre-Covid.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
You have a point about the posters; seems a little odd. However, I'd also like to point out the number of depictions of parenthood that show (and assume) only women caring for children, and not those stay-at-home dads such as myself. Things are getting better, but slowly ...
Shortly after she had given birth, we were visited by two midwives, one of whom was male. Mrs J did not mind in the least.
As a positive aside: was running around Eddington today (the new development in NW Cambridge) and came across a woman with a newborn baby. She said she was a graduate (I think at Girton), and had been allowed to take a year off her studies to have the baby; had been given subsidised accommodation for this academic year, a place for the little 'un in a creche next academic year, and help for her family when they came over to visit. It all seemed very sane and helpful. She was rather keen to talk...
She had that very familiar sleep-deprived-but-joyous look of a new mother. Quite wonderful.
I guess I just don't really find them such an imposition. You must have a lot more random people smiling at you than I do if that's the deal breaker for you. PS "relatively sensible"? Thanks, I'll take that. 😉
In ‘oppressive’ Scotland I wear masks for probably around a total of an hour per week in 1-10 minute increments. If anyone thinks that’s anywhere in the top ten of the worst things that’s happened to them in the last 18 months they’ve had a pretty easy Covid.
If there comes a point when the PB Volkssturm had to be conscripted and deployed we’re all pretty much down the shitter anyway, but I fervently hope I don’t find myself in a foxhole alongside one of the giant man babies of PB.
Your fellow Scots don't all agree. On my plane back to London from Inverness in August there was a large group of young women (down south for fun, I suspect). They were dutifully wearing masks on the plane and then on the bus to the terminal, but then they looked around, saw the English not bothering, and one of them said, "Wait, girls, we don't have to wear fucking masks, we're in England!" - and they all whipped their masks off with much drunken cheering
So there. True story
I love a tourist's anecdote, they're the best kind.
I would have liked a bit more spice. As it stands it is a bit "meh".
I think when he wrote that they "whipped off their masks with much drunken cheering" we were meant, like the author, to picture something else. But it didn't work because nobody did.
It’s pretty sick. The Belarus government seems to be not simply facilitating, but encouraging migrants, whom they then herd to the border. The Poles push back any who cross - and many will die this winter.
R4 WATO Belarus are issuing visas and arranging "tours" from Syria.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
@kinabalu has half a point. I do think there is a dash of Islamophobia in the general dislike of Khan, but only inasmuch as he seems to be a certain kind of joyless Muslim. He's teetotal. He has a reedy voice which always sounds like he is expressing peevish disapproval. He bans fireworks. He bans sexy posters on the Tube. He doesn't like parties. He doesn't say the word "sex".
And he did consort with some iffy Islamist characters when he was a lawyer, and he said some unwise things.
However, if he was a bit more fun and charismatic, if he could loosen up and look like he enjoys life, I am sure his religion would not enter the minds of 99.9% of people
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
That's a *very large* family of diseases including everything from lung cancer to asthma via TB and pneumonia. (I'm not saying "wear a mask" or "don't wear a mask" - just pointing out the "category size" comparison).
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
Nah where are those stats from.
The usual metric is "influenza and pneumonia" with a run/death rate of around 30,000/year pre-Covid.
1. The notion that mask wearing reduces the birth rate is pushing me towards the "Wear a mask everywhere forever" camp.
2. I used to have a district councilor who had emigrated to the Dominican Republic. If you wanted to get in touch, you had to fork out for an international phone call. He would pop back to Blighty to attend a couple of council meetings and make sure that he could still claim his allowances. After a year or two of negative headlines and ongoing criticism, he stood down. Sadly, he was replaced by a Lib Dem.
He knows his base hate masks. I took a train in today, it's notable that people coming in from Bexley, Dartford etc are much less likely to be wearing masks, especially the older white man-spreading type that I would peg as likely Johnson supporters (based on polling cross-tabs). The inner London commuters from solid Labour seats are mostly masked.
Which is odd indeed, given how dovish London is on covid. FWIW, there is almost zero mask wearing anywhere in the shops, pubs etc near me in north London. Commuter trains might, of course, be different.
Yes, same here. In awfully posh, Remainery, highly educated Primrose Hill, no-one is wearing a mask. They don't give a fuck. I'm not sure this is a political thing at all. It's more like London has stopped caring. We are bored of the bug
Agreed. There is some level of anger at the mayor as well for carrying on as though the virus should still halt social life. The cancellation of the fireworks still rankles for people who don't even go, it's being seen as Sadiq telling the world that London is still closed for business when it absolutely isn't.
Last week our village had a proper fireworks display on the village green. Huge bonfire. A display which went on for 40 minutes: absolutely stunning. Hundreds and hundreds of people turned out to watch. There were refreshments: toffee apples, cakes etc and Daughter's pub was heaving with customers. A real old-fashioned, enjoyable and well-attended affair, organised by the village and executed with aplomb.
If a small Cumbrian village can do it so can the London Mayor. Miserable git.
He knows his base hate masks. I took a train in today, it's notable that people coming in from Bexley, Dartford etc are much less likely to be wearing masks, especially the older white man-spreading type that I would peg as likely Johnson supporters (based on polling cross-tabs). The inner London commuters from solid Labour seats are mostly masked.
Interesting - was around Piccadilly last Saturday. The only people wearing masks indoors (like me), were the older groups (40s and above), and those who were Korean, Chinese & Japanese.
The level of non-compliance on the Tube was extremely high.
I think rush hour compliance is better than weekend which is better than late night, probably reflecting both demographics and degree of overcrowding. Personally I wear a mask indoors most of the time, except where I know there is regular testing in place like at work or eg when I went to the theatre recently, and not at home obvs.
Why do you wear a mask indoors most of the time? Are you not double vaxxed? Or do you have waning immunity?
To protect other people.
Fair enough, but it is highly unlikely you are infectious if you are double jabbed and have no symptoms
I have stopped wearing a mask (tho I might do it again, for personal protection, as I wait for my Booster). We have to get beyond the mentality of fear
I have a silk neck gaiter, which I wear mainly because it looks cool, like I am a war correspondent just back from Kabul, but I slip it over my nose if I am surrounded by the paranoid
I agree. I also test twice a week for work. So it's highly unlikely I would infect anyone. But my aversion to inadvertently infecting someone vulnerable is extremely high and I also feel like seeing people wearing masks in those confined spaces may reassure the vulnerable that others are looking out for them and allow them to participate more in society. It doesn't feel like a massive sacrifice either. Also I don't really want to catch Covid myself even though in all likelihood it would be a mild infection. It could disrupt my kids' schooling. And I could get Long Covid. So it makes sense to take small steps to avoid getting it if possible. I don't really know why masks are so totemic for some people.
Masks are fucking horrible. A blight on human life. It's an ominous sign that someone relatively sensible like you just shrugs and accepts them. They must absolutely NOT be normalised, and we have to bin them ASAP if not yesterday
For a start they are really really bad for deaf people, and for autistic people. They are just BAD. Human smiles given and received make daily life sweeter, a billion times a day. Give us back our smiles
I guess I just don't really find them such an imposition. You must have a lot more random people smiling at you than I do if that's the deal breaker for you. PS "relatively sensible"? Thanks, I'll take that. 😉
Leon is right on this, though. Given that smiling and nonverbal feedback is the very heart of human conversation, masks are a huge imposition. And he is also right, of course, that they seriously afflict the lives of the deaf, partially deaf and autistic. I suspect evidence will soon emerge that they affect young children's socialisation too: there is a reason why we have evolved to have faces – and face each other.
I do worry about the deaf. I doubt children will be affected much by not seeing the mouth of random adults on the bus, if primary caregivers at school and home aren't wearing them. Mask wearing on public transport is normal in places like Japan and I am not aware of any long term negative impact on child development.
Japan is hardly a model society. Who knows whether mask wearing has contributed to their current lack of kids. I like to see a girl's face before I start chatting to her, difficult to do if everyone's wearing a bloody mask. I think subconsciously a mask also sends the "this person is closed for business" message, loads of East Asian countries are struggling with low birth rates and record low marriages. Who knows how much not seeing each other's faces has contributed to it?
Mask wearing on public transport causes low birth rates? This is the best post I've read on PB for years. By "best", I mean, "raised the biggest laugh".
No, but when everyone around you is a potential disease carrier how much less likely are you to generally chat to a stranger? We know that East Asian countries suffer massively from a lack of socialising (and ultimately sex). Again, I'm not saying that masks are causing it at all, I'm just not ruling them out as a contributing factor. Masks inherently make everyone around you a potentially deadly hostile, that changes the nature of how we treat each other. Who's to say it isn't a factor in the low birth rate in East Asia?
But I wonder if mask-wearing is actually another symptom of a greater crisis in human interaction, in these countries, rather than a partial cause of it
The most masked-up nations in western Europe are Spain and Italy
Yes, maybe a symptom rather than cause? Either way it is interesting that the mask fascists are so keen to deny that masks cause a reduction in socialising. Even passing off social science as legitimate!
When considering complex social phenomenon, to whom should we turn? Research from expert scholars, or the musings of random people with some political axe to grind?
I wonder if there's any way of working out the answer here... Maybe we could look at the US, where Republicans have spurned the former and embraced the latter, going down the road of opposing masks and vaccination, and downing anti-worming tablets.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
That's a *very large* family of diseases including everything from lung cancer to asthma via TB and pneumonia. (I'm not saying "wear a mask" or "don't wear a mask" - just pointing out the "category size" comparison).
Indeed its hard to compare apples with oranges, but bondegezou did so with an absurd comparison so I went to the other extreme.
Its also noteworthy of course that the Covid "deaths" includes both people who died after having a Covid positive test even if they died from other reasons, and it also includes the unvaccinated who should have had their jab.
Stop spreading antivaxx hysteria. Drop your mask, get your jab.
Given MoL is a big full-time job the MP side must have been skimped. Unless of course he worked his tail off dawn to dusk to make sure nothing got neglected. Maybe that's what happened. It's only an almost impossible notion.
As for Cox, people are missing the important point that with his megaphone of a voice - oh god can you remember it during the parliamentary Brexit debates? - he is perfectly capable of talking to his constituents from the Caribbean.
Great point. There’s a guy in our office who’s Just the same.
And I always seem to sit in the same carriage as him when I get the train anywhere.
For me it’s always someone eating crisps or an apple loudly.
Not to say I haven't done similar but my heart sinks when someone sits down close to me, and with a satisfied look of anticipation plonks a Pret bag on the tray table as they get out a drink, usually of John Smiths to accompany it.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
That's a *very large* family of diseases including everything from lung cancer to asthma via TB and pneumonia. (I'm not saying "wear a mask" or "don't wear a mask" - just pointing out the "category size" comparison).
Indeed its hard to compare apples with oranges, but bondegezou did so with an absurd comparison so I went to the other extreme.
Its also noteworthy of course that the Covid "deaths" includes both people who died after having a Covid positive test even if they died from other reasons, and it also includes the unvaccinated who should have had their jab.
Stop spreading antivaxx hysteria. Drop your mask, get your jab.
As I posted in response to @bondegezou, the ONS does the comparison for us. And it's around 30,000 comparable deaths.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
The fact he’s a bellend is nothing to do with his religion. It’s like people criticising him for some of the people he acted for in his legal role. He did nothing wrong at all. It’s just cheap dog whistle. It also gets him off the hook for his ineptitude.
Sure, no free pass, but my point is simply that some of the bile he attracts is because he's a Muslim. There really is no doubt about this. The only point of debate is how much of it is driven by that. Eg take a sample of 100 people who hate Khan, who really get quite animated by him, and how many will have some serious anti-Muslim prejudice going on in their interiors? It'll be a fairly chunky 2 digit number.
You have to be one heck of an out there anti-masker to think a hospital is a fitting place to virtue signal about it. Can't see his "base" who take that view being overly numerous. Or likely to vote for anyone else anyway.
Quite. I’ve very little interest in politicising the mask debate, and in any event, vaccination has taken much of the urgency out of it.
Visiting a hospital, though ? Just stupid/thoughtless.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
That's a *very large* family of diseases including everything from lung cancer to asthma via TB and pneumonia. (I'm not saying "wear a mask" or "don't wear a mask" - just pointing out the "category size" comparison).
Indeed its hard to compare apples with oranges, but bondegezou did so with an absurd comparison so I went to the other extreme.
Its also noteworthy of course that the Covid "deaths" includes both people who died after having a Covid positive test even if they died from other reasons, and it also includes the unvaccinated who should have had their jab.
Stop spreading antivaxx hysteria. Drop your mask, get your jab.
Ah, the conflating of wearing masks with the antivaxxers. I knew it was only a matter of time.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
That's a *very large* family of diseases including everything from lung cancer to asthma via TB and pneumonia. (I'm not saying "wear a mask" or "don't wear a mask" - just pointing out the "category size" comparison).
Indeed its hard to compare apples with oranges, but bondegezou did so with an absurd comparison so I went to the other extreme.
Its also noteworthy of course that the Covid "deaths" includes both people who died after having a Covid positive test even if they died from other reasons, and it also includes the unvaccinated who should have had their jab.
Stop spreading antivaxx hysteria. Drop your mask, get your jab.
Ah, the conflating of wearing masks with the antivaxxers. I knew it was only a matter of time.
A lot of the mask zealots and the antivaxxers and the lockdown zealots all use the same or similar fake arguments.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
That's a *very large* family of diseases including everything from lung cancer to asthma via TB and pneumonia. (I'm not saying "wear a mask" or "don't wear a mask" - just pointing out the "category size" comparison).
Indeed its hard to compare apples with oranges, but bondegezou did so with an absurd comparison so I went to the other extreme.
Its also noteworthy of course that the Covid "deaths" includes both people who died after having a Covid positive test even if they died from other reasons, and it also includes the unvaccinated who should have had their jab.
Stop spreading antivaxx hysteria. Drop your mask, get your jab.
Ah, the conflating of wearing masks with the antivaxxers. I knew it was only a matter of time.
A lot of the mask zealots and the antivaxxers and the lockdown zealots all use the same or similar fake arguments.
Vaccines work. The rest of that bullshit doesn't.
A lot/most of the antivaxxers are also anti mask zealots, so using Phil 'logic'...
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
I am going to write to him about it. I have no issue with including trans people in the poster (no-one should be hateful to them because of what they are). I have a huge problem with him ignoring women - both in the poster and in the Pride campaign.
And if Labour want my vote they are not going to get it by ignoring my very existence. I have lived long enough to recognise sexism when I see it. This is just the latest variant of it.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
@kinabalu has half a point. I do think there is a dash of Islamophobia in the general dislike of Khan, but only inasmuch as he seems to be a certain kind of joyless Muslim. He's teetotal. He has a reedy voice which always sounds like he is expressing peevish disapproval. He bans fireworks. He bans sexy posters on the Tube. He doesn't like parties. He doesn't say the word "sex".
And he did consort with some iffy Islamist characters when he was a lawyer, and he said some unwise things.
However, if he was a bit more fun and charismatic, if he could loosen up and look like he enjoys life, I am sure his religion would not enter the minds of 99.9% of people
Mostly, he is just useless. That's it.
Yes, thank you. It is undeniable. Just take a look at some of the abuse he gets. It's pretty lurid and irrational. As for you, and seeing as we're rather cosy atm, I don't pick that up as a major factor in your Khan antipathy. I think you hate him for the same reason you love BoJo. You like big colourful risque personas (which is how you see yourself) and Khan's the opposite. In fact that's what you're saying in this post, isn't it, so no great insight from me there.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
I am going to write to him about it. I have no issue with including trans people in the poster (no-one should be hateful to them because of what they are). I have a huge problem with him ignoring women - both in the poster and in the Pride campaign.
And if Labour want my vote they are not going to get it by ignoring my very existence. I have lived long enough to recognise sexism when I see it. This is just the latest variant of it.
I think you'll get an answer back that "gender identity" includes people (everyone whether that is a good or bad thing and regardless of "bits") who says they are/identifies as a woman. Which includes you and a pre-op transsexual.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
That's a *very large* family of diseases including everything from lung cancer to asthma via TB and pneumonia. (I'm not saying "wear a mask" or "don't wear a mask" - just pointing out the "category size" comparison).
Indeed its hard to compare apples with oranges, but bondegezou did so with an absurd comparison so I went to the other extreme.
Its also noteworthy of course that the Covid "deaths" includes both people who died after having a Covid positive test even if they died from other reasons, and it also includes the unvaccinated who should have had their jab.
Stop spreading antivaxx hysteria. Drop your mask, get your jab.
Ah, the conflating of wearing masks with the antivaxxers. I knew it was only a matter of time.
A lot of the mask zealots and the antivaxxers and the lockdown zealots all use the same or similar fake arguments.
Vaccines work. The rest of that bullshit doesn't.
A lot/most of the antivaxxers are also anti mask zealots, so using Phil 'logic'...
Well they're stupid people so we can ignore them.
It is the arguments I was tackling, not the people. You fail to understand the difference?
Given MoL is a big full-time job the MP side must have been skimped. Unless of course he worked his tail off dawn to dusk to make sure nothing got neglected. Maybe that's what happened. It's only an almost impossible notion.
As for Cox, people are missing the important point that with his megaphone of a voice - oh god can you remember it during the parliamentary Brexit debates? - he is perfectly capable of talking to his constituents from the Caribbean.
Great point. There’s a guy in our office who’s Just the same.
And I always seem to sit in the same carriage as him when I get the train anywhere.
For me it’s always someone eating crisps or an apple loudly.
Eating on the tube is plain bad manners. There really is no reason why you cannot wait until you get off and get home or go to a cafe. Ditto doing your make up, nails or - as I once saw - flossing your teeth.
BREAKING: NHS staff will have to be vaccinated if they deal with patients from next year.
Mandatory vaccination will cause controversy, as it has done in social care. But the care sector will welcome this equalisation - staff have been leaving care to go to NHS and avoid vax.
Rule comes in from April 1st next year for NHS staff.
Care staff meanwhile must be double vaccinated by this Thursday, 11th Nov.
He knows his base hate masks. I took a train in today, it's notable that people coming in from Bexley, Dartford etc are much less likely to be wearing masks, especially the older white man-spreading type that I would peg as likely Johnson supporters (based on polling cross-tabs). The inner London commuters from solid Labour seats are mostly masked.
Interesting - was around Piccadilly last Saturday. The only people wearing masks indoors (like me), were the older groups (40s and above), and those who were Korean, Chinese & Japanese.
The level of non-compliance on the Tube was extremely high.
I think rush hour compliance is better than weekend which is better than late night, probably reflecting both demographics and degree of overcrowding. Personally I wear a mask indoors most of the time, except where I know there is regular testing in place like at work or eg when I went to the theatre recently, and not at home obvs.
Why do you wear a mask indoors most of the time? Are you not double vaxxed? Or do you have waning immunity?
To protect other people.
Fair enough, but it is highly unlikely you are infectious if you are double jabbed and have no symptoms
I have stopped wearing a mask (tho I might do it again, for personal protection, as I wait for my Booster). We have to get beyond the mentality of fear
I have a silk neck gaiter, which I wear mainly because it looks cool, like I am a war correspondent just back from Kabul, but I slip it over my nose if I am surrounded by the paranoid
I agree. I also test twice a week for work. So it's highly unlikely I would infect anyone. But my aversion to inadvertently infecting someone vulnerable is extremely high and I also feel like seeing people wearing masks in those confined spaces may reassure the vulnerable that others are looking out for them and allow them to participate more in society. It doesn't feel like a massive sacrifice either. Also I don't really want to catch Covid myself even though in all likelihood it would be a mild infection. It could disrupt my kids' schooling. And I could get Long Covid. So it makes sense to take small steps to avoid getting it if possible. I don't really know why masks are so totemic for some people.
Masks are fucking horrible. A blight on human life. It's an ominous sign that someone relatively sensible like you just shrugs and accepts them. They must absolutely NOT be normalised, and we have to bin them ASAP if not yesterday
For a start they are really really bad for deaf people, and for autistic people. They are just BAD. Human smiles given and received make daily life sweeter, a billion times a day. Give us back our smiles
I guess I just don't really find them such an imposition. You must have a lot more random people smiling at you than I do if that's the deal breaker for you. PS "relatively sensible"? Thanks, I'll take that. 😉
Leon is right on this, though. Given that smiling and nonverbal feedback is the very heart of human conversation, masks are a huge imposition. And he is also right, of course, that they seriously afflict the lives of the deaf, partially deaf and autistic. I suspect evidence will soon emerge that they affect young children's socialisation too: there is a reason why we have evolved to have faces – and face each other.
I do worry about the deaf. I doubt children will be affected much by not seeing the mouth of random adults on the bus, if primary caregivers at school and home aren't wearing them. Mask wearing on public transport is normal in places like Japan and I am not aware of any long term negative impact on child development.
Japan is hardly a model society. Who knows whether mask wearing has contributed to their current lack of kids. I like to see a girl's face before I start chatting to her, difficult to do if everyone's wearing a bloody mask. I think subconsciously a mask also sends the "this person is closed for business" message, loads of East Asian countries are struggling with low birth rates and record low marriages. Who knows how much not seeing each other's faces has contributed to it?
Hmm I doubt it. Japan's long hours work culture is the main cause I think. Not many lasting relationships start from conversations with strangers on public transport in my experience. Don't most young people meet partners via dating apps these days?
No one is sure why East Asian birth rates have collapsed so bad and so quick. Internet and social media are another factor. It's easier to be online. Also falling testosterone levels (also a problem in the West) = feminine men. Lower sperm counts too?
But masks might be involved. If you have a crisis of falling human interactions, adding another barrier to young people copping off is not good. Say a girl has a dazzling smile, which lights up her face, but the young man on the bus never sees it, that means they don't flirt = that's one love affair that never starts, and fewer babies down the line
Get rid of the masks. We want our smiles back
In Japan, there is quite a lot of evidence that women see the role of wife and mother as an especially shitty deal.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
That's a *very large* family of diseases including everything from lung cancer to asthma via TB and pneumonia. (I'm not saying "wear a mask" or "don't wear a mask" - just pointing out the "category size" comparison).
Indeed its hard to compare apples with oranges, but bondegezou did so with an absurd comparison so I went to the other extreme.
Its also noteworthy of course that the Covid "deaths" includes both people who died after having a Covid positive test even if they died from other reasons, and it also includes the unvaccinated who should have had their jab.
Stop spreading antivaxx hysteria. Drop your mask, get your jab.
Ah, the conflating of wearing masks with the antivaxxers. I knew it was only a matter of time.
A lot of the mask zealots and the antivaxxers and the lockdown zealots all use the same or similar fake arguments.
Vaccines work. The rest of that bullshit doesn't.
A lot/most of the antivaxxers are also anti mask zealots, so using Phil 'logic'...
Well they're stupid people so we can ignore them.
It is the arguments I was tackling, not the people. You fail to understand the difference?
Ah, the arguments.
'Stop spreading antivaxx hysteria. Drop your mask, get your jab.'
When the online equivalent of mouthy pricks jabbing me in the chest start telling people what to do I'm afraid their arguments somewhat pass me by.
On hospitals, my other half has been invited to appointment with a whole bunch of other people with the same condition as herself. All at the same time. They're all waiting, and there's apparently not a whole lot of social distancing. What's the point of a mass same time invite. I mean I had one for a speeding fine at the court once, but how can it be appropriate for a hospital, particularly in a pandemic ?
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
@kinabalu has half a point. I do think there is a dash of Islamophobia in the general dislike of Khan, but only inasmuch as he seems to be a certain kind of joyless Muslim. He's teetotal. He has a reedy voice which always sounds like he is expressing peevish disapproval. He bans fireworks. He bans sexy posters on the Tube. He doesn't like parties. He doesn't say the word "sex".
And he did consort with some iffy Islamist characters when he was a lawyer, and he said some unwise things.
However, if he was a bit more fun and charismatic, if he could loosen up and look like he enjoys life, I am sure his religion would not enter the minds of 99.9% of people
Mostly, he is just useless. That's it.
Yes, thank you. It is undeniable. Just take a look at some of the abuse he gets. It's pretty lurid and irrational. As for you, and seeing as we're rather cosy atm, I don't pick that up as a major factor in your Khan antipathy. I think you hate him for the same reason you love BoJo. You like big colourful risque personas (which is how you see yourself) and Khan's the opposite. In fact that's what you're saying in this post, isn't it, so no great insight from me there.
Half right. I don't see myself as this risque character, and that's not why I want one as mayor.
It's because a great mayor of a world city NEEDS to be a big, upbeat, can-do character. The best New York mayors have all been like this. Hizonnah
Boris and Ken both had the right kind of optimism combined with sizeable personalities (sadly Ken sank into drunken madness). Khan is a peevish mouse of a man, who doesn't drink and disapproves of everyone and everything. It's just not a good fit for London. Labour would be insane to make him leader
And now I must do the risque thing of taking my old wine racks to be recycled. Later
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
@kinabalu has half a point. I do think there is a dash of Islamophobia in the general dislike of Khan, but only inasmuch as he seems to be a certain kind of joyless Muslim. He's teetotal. He has a reedy voice which always sounds like he is expressing peevish disapproval. He bans fireworks. He bans sexy posters on the Tube. He doesn't like parties. He doesn't say the word "sex".
And he did consort with some iffy Islamist characters when he was a lawyer, and he said some unwise things.
However, if he was a bit more fun and charismatic, if he could loosen up and look like he enjoys life, I am sure his religion would not enter the minds of 99.9% of people
Mostly, he is just useless. That's it.
Yes, thank you. It is undeniable. Just take a look at some of the abuse he gets. It's pretty lurid and irrational. As for you, and seeing as we're rather cosy atm, I don't pick that up as a major factor in your Khan antipathy. I think you hate him for the same reason you love BoJo. You like big colourful risque personas (which is how you see yourself) and Khan's the opposite. In fact that's what you're saying in this post, isn't it, so no great insight from me there.
Half right. I don't see myself as this risque character, and that's not why I want one as mayor.
It's because a great mayor of a world city NEEDS to be a big, upbeat, can-do character. The best New York mayors have all been like this. Hizonnah
Boris and Ken both had the right kind of optimism combined with sizeable personalities (sadly Ken sank into drunken madness). Khan is a peevish mouse of a man, who doesn't drink and disapproves of everyone and everything. It's just not a good fit for London. Labour would be insane to make him leader
And now I must do the risque thing of taking my old wine racks to be recycled. Later
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
@kinabalu has half a point. I do think there is a dash of Islamophobia in the general dislike of Khan, but only inasmuch as he seems to be a certain kind of joyless Muslim. He's teetotal. He has a reedy voice which always sounds like he is expressing peevish disapproval. He bans fireworks. He bans sexy posters on the Tube. He doesn't like parties. He doesn't say the word "sex".
And he did consort with some iffy Islamist characters when he was a lawyer, and he said some unwise things.
However, if he was a bit more fun and charismatic, if he could loosen up and look like he enjoys life, I am sure his religion would not enter the minds of 99.9% of people
Mostly, he is just useless. That's it.
Yes, thank you. It is undeniable. Just take a look at some of the abuse he gets. It's pretty lurid and irrational. As for you, and seeing as we're rather cosy atm, I don't pick that up as a major factor in your Khan antipathy. I think you hate him for the same reason you love BoJo. You like big colourful risque personas (which is how you see yourself) and Khan's the opposite. In fact that's what you're saying in this post, isn't it, so no great insight from me there.
Half right. I don't see myself as this risque character, and that's not why I want one as mayor.
It's because a great mayor of a world city NEEDS to be a big, upbeat, can-do character. The best New York mayors have all been like this. Hizonnah
Boris and Ken both had the right kind of optimism combined with sizeable personalities (sadly Ken sank into drunken madness). Khan is a peevish mouse of a man, who doesn't drink and disapproves of everyone and everything. It's just not a good fit for London. Labour would be insane to make him leader
And now I must do the risque thing of taking my old wine racks to be recycled. Later
Wouldn't refilled be better?
They're broken! I guess they get a lot of use.....
Given MoL is a big full-time job the MP side must have been skimped. Unless of course he worked his tail off dawn to dusk to make sure nothing got neglected. Maybe that's what happened. It's only an almost impossible notion.
As for Cox, people are missing the important point that with his megaphone of a voice - oh god can you remember it during the parliamentary Brexit debates? - he is perfectly capable of talking to his constituents from the Caribbean.
Great point. There’s a guy in our office who’s Just the same.
And I always seem to sit in the same carriage as him when I get the train anywhere.
For me it’s always someone eating crisps or an apple loudly.
Eating on the tube is plain bad manners. There really is no reason why you cannot wait until you get off and get home or go to a cafe. Ditto doing your make up, nails or - as I once saw - flossing your teeth.
Some people really do behave like oafs in public.
Singing "Lip Up Fatty" on the tube is also Bad Manners.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
@kinabalu has half a point. I do think there is a dash of Islamophobia in the general dislike of Khan, but only inasmuch as he seems to be a certain kind of joyless Muslim. He's teetotal. He has a reedy voice which always sounds like he is expressing peevish disapproval. He bans fireworks. He bans sexy posters on the Tube. He doesn't like parties. He doesn't say the word "sex".
And he did consort with some iffy Islamist characters when he was a lawyer, and he said some unwise things.
However, if he was a bit more fun and charismatic, if he could loosen up and look like he enjoys life, I am sure his religion would not enter the minds of 99.9% of people
Mostly, he is just useless. That's it.
Yes, thank you. It is undeniable. Just take a look at some of the abuse he gets. It's pretty lurid and irrational. As for you, and seeing as we're rather cosy atm, I don't pick that up as a major factor in your Khan antipathy. I think you hate him for the same reason you love BoJo. You like big colourful risque personas (which is how you see yourself) and Khan's the opposite. In fact that's what you're saying in this post, isn't it, so no great insight from me there.
Half right. I don't see myself as this risque character, and that's not why I want one as mayor.
It's because a great mayor of a world city NEEDS to be a big, upbeat, can-do character. The best New York mayors have all been like this. Hizonnah
Boris and Ken both had the right kind of optimism combined with sizeable personalities (sadly Ken sank into drunken madness). Khan is a peevish mouse of a man, who doesn't drink and disapproves of everyone and everything. It's just not a good fit for London. Labour would be insane to make him leader
And now I must do the risque thing of taking my old wine racks to be recycled. Later
BREAKING: NHS staff will have to be vaccinated if they deal with patients from next year.
Mandatory vaccination will cause controversy, as it has done in social care. But the care sector will welcome this equalisation - staff have been leaving care to go to NHS and avoid vax.
Rule comes in from April 1st next year for NHS staff.
Care staff meanwhile must be double vaccinated by this Thursday, 11th Nov.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
@kinabalu has half a point. I do think there is a dash of Islamophobia in the general dislike of Khan, but only inasmuch as he seems to be a certain kind of joyless Muslim. He's teetotal. He has a reedy voice which always sounds like he is expressing peevish disapproval. He bans fireworks. He bans sexy posters on the Tube. He doesn't like parties. He doesn't say the word "sex".
And he did consort with some iffy Islamist characters when he was a lawyer, and he said some unwise things.
However, if he was a bit more fun and charismatic, if he could loosen up and look like he enjoys life, I am sure his religion would not enter the minds of 99.9% of people
Mostly, he is just useless. That's it.
Yes, thank you. It is undeniable. Just take a look at some of the abuse he gets. It's pretty lurid and irrational. As for you, and seeing as we're rather cosy atm, I don't pick that up as a major factor in your Khan antipathy. I think you hate him for the same reason you love BoJo. You like big colourful risque personas (which is how you see yourself) and Khan's the opposite. In fact that's what you're saying in this post, isn't it, so no great insight from me there.
Half right. I don't see myself as this risque character, and that's not why I want one as mayor.
It's because a great mayor of a world city NEEDS to be a big, upbeat, can-do character. The best New York mayors have all been like this. Hizonnah
Boris and Ken both had the right kind of optimism combined with sizeable personalities (sadly Ken sank into drunken madness). Khan is a peevish mouse of a man, who doesn't drink and disapproves of everyone and everything. It's just not a good fit for London. Labour would be insane to make him leader
And now I must do the risque thing of taking my old wine racks to be recycled. Later
Wouldn't refilled be better?
They're broken! I guess they get a lot of use.....
They must be more form over function I'm guessing.
The president of Belarus is behaving in the most despicable way imaginable. Using migrants as weapons against the Poland and the European Union. According to an interview on Radio 4's One O'clock News, he's even pocketing visa money from them.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
You have a point about the posters; seems a little odd. However, I'd also like to point out the number of depictions of parenthood that show (and assume) only women caring for children, and not those stay-at-home dads such as myself. Things are getting better, but slowly ...
Shortly after she had given birth, we were visited by two midwives, one of whom was male. Mrs J did not mind in the least.
As a positive aside: was running around Eddington today (the new development in NW Cambridge) and came across a woman with a newborn baby. She said she was a graduate (I think at Girton), and had been allowed to take a year off her studies to have the baby; had been given subsidised accommodation for this academic year, a place for the little 'un in a creche next academic year, and help for her family when they came over to visit. It all seemed very sane and helpful. She was rather keen to talk...
She had that very familiar sleep-deprived-but-joyous look of a new mother. Quite wonderful.
You are right on the stay-at-home-dads issue. Note that the one parent on the posters was a mother - not a father.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
BREAKING: NHS staff will have to be vaccinated if they deal with patients from next year.
Mandatory vaccination will cause controversy, as it has done in social care. But the care sector will welcome this equalisation - staff have been leaving care to go to NHS and avoid vax.
Rule comes in from April 1st next year for NHS staff.
Care staff meanwhile must be double vaccinated by this Thursday, 11th Nov.
He knows his base hate masks. I took a train in today, it's notable that people coming in from Bexley, Dartford etc are much less likely to be wearing masks, especially the older white man-spreading type that I would peg as likely Johnson supporters (based on polling cross-tabs). The inner London commuters from solid Labour seats are mostly masked.
Interesting - was around Piccadilly last Saturday. The only people wearing masks indoors (like me), were the older groups (40s and above), and those who were Korean, Chinese & Japanese.
The level of non-compliance on the Tube was extremely high.
I think rush hour compliance is better than weekend which is better than late night, probably reflecting both demographics and degree of overcrowding. Personally I wear a mask indoors most of the time, except where I know there is regular testing in place like at work or eg when I went to the theatre recently, and not at home obvs.
Why do you wear a mask indoors most of the time? Are you not double vaxxed? Or do you have waning immunity?
To protect other people.
Fair enough, but it is highly unlikely you are infectious if you are double jabbed and have no symptoms
I have stopped wearing a mask (tho I might do it again, for personal protection, as I wait for my Booster). We have to get beyond the mentality of fear
I have a silk neck gaiter, which I wear mainly because it looks cool, like I am a war correspondent just back from Kabul, but I slip it over my nose if I am surrounded by the paranoid
I agree. I also test twice a week for work. So it's highly unlikely I would infect anyone. But my aversion to inadvertently infecting someone vulnerable is extremely high and I also feel like seeing people wearing masks in those confined spaces may reassure the vulnerable that others are looking out for them and allow them to participate more in society. It doesn't feel like a massive sacrifice either. Also I don't really want to catch Covid myself even though in all likelihood it would be a mild infection. It could disrupt my kids' schooling. And I could get Long Covid. So it makes sense to take small steps to avoid getting it if possible. I don't really know why masks are so totemic for some people.
Masks are fucking horrible. A blight on human life. It's an ominous sign that someone relatively sensible like you just shrugs and accepts them. They must absolutely NOT be normalised, and we have to bin them ASAP if not yesterday
For a start they are really really bad for deaf people, and for autistic people. They are just BAD. Human smiles given and received make daily life sweeter, a billion times a day. Give us back our smiles
I guess I just don't really find them such an imposition. You must have a lot more random people smiling at you than I do if that's the deal breaker for you. PS "relatively sensible"? Thanks, I'll take that. 😉
Leon is right on this, though. Given that smiling and nonverbal feedback is the very heart of human conversation, masks are a huge imposition. And he is also right, of course, that they seriously afflict the lives of the deaf, partially deaf and autistic. I suspect evidence will soon emerge that they affect young children's socialisation too: there is a reason why we have evolved to have faces – and face each other.
I do worry about the deaf. I doubt children will be affected much by not seeing the mouth of random adults on the bus, if primary caregivers at school and home aren't wearing them. Mask wearing on public transport is normal in places like Japan and I am not aware of any long term negative impact on child development.
Japan is hardly a model society. Who knows whether mask wearing has contributed to their current lack of kids. I like to see a girl's face before I start chatting to her, difficult to do if everyone's wearing a bloody mask. I think subconsciously a mask also sends the "this person is closed for business" message, loads of East Asian countries are struggling with low birth rates and record low marriages. Who knows how much not seeing each other's faces has contributed to it?
Hmm I doubt it. Japan's long hours work culture is the main cause I think. Not many lasting relationships start from conversations with strangers on public transport in my experience. Don't most young people meet partners via dating apps these days?
No one is sure why East Asian birth rates have collapsed so bad and so quick. Internet and social media are another factor. It's easier to be online. Also falling testosterone levels (also a problem in the West) = feminine men. Lower sperm counts too?
But masks might be involved. If you have a crisis of falling human interactions, adding another barrier to young people copping off is not good. Say a girl has a dazzling smile, which lights up her face, but the young man on the bus never sees it, that means they don't flirt = that's one love affair that never starts, and fewer babies down the line
Get rid of the masks. We want our smiles back
Maybe the the girl on the bus has poor teeth, but a lovely personality. Without masks, the young man dismisses her, but with masks, he gets to know her first, and a love affair is saved!
Or maybe the girl on the bus just wants to read her book and get to work, without being bothered by this young man. If she wants a date, she'll use Bumble.
You have no romance in your soul. "Bumble". Pff!
Even more important than a lack of opportunities for impromptu sexual encounters, masks generally reduce levels of trust. And a society with a high level of trust (which by global standards, the UK still is) is the greatest asset we have.
Trust is also of crucial importance for left-wing politics generally.
By pushing continued mask-wearing, because Boris Johnson is anti-masks, many lefty political figures are encouraging a more atomized society that weakens left-wing politics.
I suggest a re-read of Rosa Luxemburg's The Mass Strike.
BREAKING: NHS staff will have to be vaccinated if they deal with patients from next year.
Mandatory vaccination will cause controversy, as it has done in social care. But the care sector will welcome this equalisation - staff have been leaving care to go to NHS and avoid vax.
Rule comes in from April 1st next year for NHS staff.
Care staff meanwhile must be double vaccinated by this Thursday, 11th Nov.
He knows his base hate masks. I took a train in today, it's notable that people coming in from Bexley, Dartford etc are much less likely to be wearing masks, especially the older white man-spreading type that I would peg as likely Johnson supporters (based on polling cross-tabs). The inner London commuters from solid Labour seats are mostly masked.
Interesting - was around Piccadilly last Saturday. The only people wearing masks indoors (like me), were the older groups (40s and above), and those who were Korean, Chinese & Japanese.
The level of non-compliance on the Tube was extremely high.
I think rush hour compliance is better than weekend which is better than late night, probably reflecting both demographics and degree of overcrowding. Personally I wear a mask indoors most of the time, except where I know there is regular testing in place like at work or eg when I went to the theatre recently, and not at home obvs.
Why do you wear a mask indoors most of the time? Are you not double vaxxed? Or do you have waning immunity?
To protect other people.
Fair enough, but it is highly unlikely you are infectious if you are double jabbed and have no symptoms
I have stopped wearing a mask (tho I might do it again, for personal protection, as I wait for my Booster). We have to get beyond the mentality of fear
I have a silk neck gaiter, which I wear mainly because it looks cool, like I am a war correspondent just back from Kabul, but I slip it over my nose if I am surrounded by the paranoid
I agree. I also test twice a week for work. So it's highly unlikely I would infect anyone. But my aversion to inadvertently infecting someone vulnerable is extremely high and I also feel like seeing people wearing masks in those confined spaces may reassure the vulnerable that others are looking out for them and allow them to participate more in society. It doesn't feel like a massive sacrifice either. Also I don't really want to catch Covid myself even though in all likelihood it would be a mild infection. It could disrupt my kids' schooling. And I could get Long Covid. So it makes sense to take small steps to avoid getting it if possible. I don't really know why masks are so totemic for some people.
Masks are fucking horrible. A blight on human life. It's an ominous sign that someone relatively sensible like you just shrugs and accepts them. They must absolutely NOT be normalised, and we have to bin them ASAP if not yesterday
For a start they are really really bad for deaf people, and for autistic people. They are just BAD. Human smiles given and received make daily life sweeter, a billion times a day. Give us back our smiles
I guess I just don't really find them such an imposition. You must have a lot more random people smiling at you than I do if that's the deal breaker for you. PS "relatively sensible"? Thanks, I'll take that. 😉
Leon is right on this, though. Given that smiling and nonverbal feedback is the very heart of human conversation, masks are a huge imposition. And he is also right, of course, that they seriously afflict the lives of the deaf, partially deaf and autistic. I suspect evidence will soon emerge that they affect young children's socialisation too: there is a reason why we have evolved to have faces – and face each other.
I do worry about the deaf. I doubt children will be affected much by not seeing the mouth of random adults on the bus, if primary caregivers at school and home aren't wearing them. Mask wearing on public transport is normal in places like Japan and I am not aware of any long term negative impact on child development.
Japan is hardly a model society. Who knows whether mask wearing has contributed to their current lack of kids. I like to see a girl's face before I start chatting to her, difficult to do if everyone's wearing a bloody mask. I think subconsciously a mask also sends the "this person is closed for business" message, loads of East Asian countries are struggling with low birth rates and record low marriages. Who knows how much not seeing each other's faces has contributed to it?
Hmm I doubt it. Japan's long hours work culture is the main cause I think. Not many lasting relationships start from conversations with strangers on public transport in my experience. Don't most young people meet partners via dating apps these days?
No one is sure why East Asian birth rates have collapsed so bad and so quick. Internet and social media are another factor. It's easier to be online. Also falling testosterone levels (also a problem in the West) = feminine men. Lower sperm counts too?
But masks might be involved. If you have a crisis of falling human interactions, adding another barrier to young people copping off is not good. Say a girl has a dazzling smile, which lights up her face, but the young man on the bus never sees it, that means they don't flirt = that's one love affair that never starts, and fewer babies down the line
Get rid of the masks. We want our smiles back
In Japan, there is quite a lot of evidence that women see the role of wife and mother as an especially shitty deal.
S Korea, too - and there’s a lot of evidence that it is indeed just that.
The idea that mask wearing has anything to do with it is more than a bit odd. The reality is that in developed economies, women have educational and employment opportunities which make marriage under the old terms look exceedingly unattractive.
Given MoL is a big full-time job the MP side must have been skimped. Unless of course he worked his tail off dawn to dusk to make sure nothing got neglected. Maybe that's what happened. It's only an almost impossible notion.
As for Cox, people are missing the important point that with his megaphone of a voice - oh god can you remember it during the parliamentary Brexit debates? - he is perfectly capable of talking to his constituents from the Caribbean.
Great point. There’s a guy in our office who’s Just the same.
And I always seem to sit in the same carriage as him when I get the train anywhere.
For me it’s always someone eating crisps or an apple loudly.
Eating on the tube is plain bad manners. There really is no reason why you cannot wait until you get off and get home or go to a cafe. Ditto doing your make up, nails or - as I once saw - flossing your teeth.
Some people really do behave like oafs in public.
I once saw a guy grab his nose, squeeze it, and throw what came out onto the tube train floor.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
Apart from the one where it lowers the risk of you infecting other people. That's a reason.
No it isn't.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
Two important pieces have recently been published on NI that shed more light on both the UK's catastrophic failure and, in my view, the cost of the EU's partial interpretation of the GFA. The first is by Policy Exchange and 2nd by IRE's former perm rep to EU. Some thoughts 1/17
The root of the current difficulty in NI (beside Brexit) is the EU/IRE pushed an unbalanced interpretation of the Good Friday Agreement which the UK eventually signed up to even though it disagreed. This was then locked in with the Dec 2017 joint report. Often overlooked 3/17
The CRUCIAL point: “The EU ‘forced’* the UK to accept a solution that worked legally for the EU but worked neither operationally nor politically in the context of Northern Ireland.” Reinforced below👇 7/17
*not forced—May could have fought and made case for no-deal to parliament
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
Apart from the one where it lowers the risk of you infecting other people. That's a reason.
No it isn't.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
YES IT FUCKING IS YOU TOOL Not everyone who is vaccinated is safe.
No it isn't.
Keep swearing if you like. There is no such thing as "safe", there is risk to everything in life.
Do you ever get behind the wheels of a car, is that "safe"?
I broke down on the motorway this weekend - without warning one of my tyres failed. Thankfully I wasn't in an accident and was able to get the tyre replaced with the spare, but it was risky when it happened so should I never ever drive again?
If people get infected, they get infected. If I get infected, I get infected. So be it.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
So you're saying someone from the left is still less likely to be calling for a long prison sentence than someone from the right?
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
I am going to write to him about it. I have no issue with including trans people in the poster (no-one should be hateful to them because of what they are). I have a huge problem with him ignoring women - both in the poster and in the Pride campaign.
And if Labour want my vote they are not going to get it by ignoring my very existence. I have lived long enough to recognise sexism when I see it. This is just the latest variant of it.
I think you'll get an answer back that "gender identity" includes people (everyone whether that is a good or bad thing and regardless of "bits") who says they are/identifies as a woman. Which includes you and a pre-op transsexual.
Bollocks it does.
If sex and gender are not the same as they keep saying then one does not include the other.
It is - bluntly - yet another way in which plain old-fashioned sexism cloaks itself.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
That's possibly fair comment. I think libertarianism (lower case l) of both the left and right varieties (and yes there are two varieties before @HYUFD pops up) is sadly on the wane. Wise left-libertarians still exist though, and exist in numbers, yet their voice is muted by authoritarians both of the left and right variety.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
Apart from the one where it lowers the risk of you infecting other people. That's a reason.
No it isn't.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
YES IT FUCKING IS YOU TOOL Not everyone who is vaccinated is safe.
But society has to operate as though they were. For the vast majority of people, being vaxxed relegates Covid to a bad cold. For some it remains more serious. For these people then I'm sure the flu would equally be (and have been) serious.
But if society is to return to some kind of normality (and in the context of no one pre-Covid wearing masks when in public, even with off-putting symptoms of cold/flu) masks have to be jettisoned.
I do not want to live in a society where masks are forever more part of our culture. You may wish to and that is perfectly understandable. It will eventually I suppose be up to the voters to decide.
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
The logic of that position is that a woman who refuses to have sex with a black man (or vice versa) should be prosecuted under race discrimination laws.
Lord only knows how it is that much of the Western world, including to a large extent the government and the law, have got us into this Alice-in-Wonderland lunacy. It was certainly not with the consent of the population.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
I am going to write to him about it. I have no issue with including trans people in the poster (no-one should be hateful to them because of what they are). I have a huge problem with him ignoring women - both in the poster and in the Pride campaign.
And if Labour want my vote they are not going to get it by ignoring my very existence. I have lived long enough to recognise sexism when I see it. This is just the latest variant of it.
I think you'll get an answer back that "gender identity" includes people (everyone whether that is a good or bad thing and regardless of "bits") who says they are/identifies as a woman. Which includes you and a pre-op transsexual.
Bollocks it does.
If sex and gender are not the same as they keep saying then one does not include the other.
It is - bluntly - yet another way in which plain old-fashioned sexism cloaks itself.
We are moving to a place in society where the two are elided. I'm sure that the authors of the poster meant to include all definitions of women including yours and others where you might not agree that their definition is a woman. They are trying as far as I can see, and as someone who is pale, male and stale, to be inclusive.
Oh and like gaslighting I can never remember which is which of sex and gender. One you have and one you decide isn't it but I can never remember which.
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
The logic of that position is that a woman who refuses to have sex with a black man (or vice versa) should be prosecuted under race discrimination laws.
Lord only knows how it is that much of the Western world, including to a large extent the government and the law, have got us into this Alice-in-Wonderland lunacy. It was certainly not with the consent of the population.
I wonder if @Cyclefree agrees but I think Liz Truss as Women and Equalities minister has done good work on this.
It seems for all other parties now that the very notion women even exist is anathema.
Two important pieces have recently been published on NI that shed more light on both the UK's catastrophic failure and, in my view, the cost of the EU's partial interpretation of the GFA. The first is by Policy Exchange and 2nd by IRE's former perm rep to EU. Some thoughts 1/17
The root of the current difficulty in NI (beside Brexit) is the EU/IRE pushed an unbalanced interpretation of the Good Friday Agreement which the UK eventually signed up to even though it disagreed. This was then locked in with the Dec 2017 joint report. Often overlooked 3/17
The CRUCIAL point: “The EU ‘forced’* the UK to accept a solution that worked legally for the EU but worked neither operationally nor politically in the context of Northern Ireland.” Reinforced below👇 7/17
*not forced—May could have fought and made case for no-deal to parliament
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
The logic of that position is that a woman who refuses to have sex with a black man (or vice versa) should be prosecuted under race discrimination laws.
Lord only knows how it is that much of the Western world, including to a large extent the government and the law, have got us into this Alice-in-Wonderland lunacy. It was certainly not with the consent of the population.
She has also equated it with anti-Semitism somewhere. I'd need to dig up the quote.
The irony is that groups like these are simply rejecting the very simple message which women have fought for - "No means no."
They are behaving like the very worst old-fashioned sexist. Denying that sexuality is based on sex and claiming that it is to do with societal prejudices also seems to me to be homophobic.
It is lunacy and dangerous. And risks a backlash which will likely harm the very people she claims to want to represent.
The EU committed early on to a political solution broadly based on Northern Ireland maintaining alignment with the EU single market and customs union. This was based on an Irish interpretation of the Belfast Agreement that Dublin had many months to promote and test with the Commission and the other EU27. This interpretation was all-island, with North-South cooperation — institutional but also political, economic, societal, security, and agricultural — at its heart. To all intents and purposes, this interpretation excluded Northern Ireland’s integration in the UK across all these areas: it was one-dimensional and therefore entirely unbalanced and provided a deeply flawed picture of the agreement
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
Apart from the one where it lowers the risk of you infecting other people. That's a reason.
No it isn't.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
YES IT FUCKING IS YOU TOOL Not everyone who is vaccinated is safe.
No it isn't.
Keep swearing if you like. There is no such thing as "safe", there is risk to everything in life.
Do you ever get behind the wheels of a car, is that "safe"?
I broke down on the motorway this weekend - without warning one of my tyres failed. Thankfully I wasn't in an accident and was able to get the tyre replaced with the spare, but it was risky when it happened so should I never ever drive again?
If people get infected, they get infected. If I get infected, I get infected. So be it.
You're ridiculous. Everything is so fucking absolute isn't it. You say stupid things like "there are no reasons. None". Then you pretend that the NEGATION of your absolute is itself an absolute.
Wearing a mask might save someone else's life. That's a reason. Only King Twat from the Planet Twatulon would think that is not a reason. You might say that there are also reasons not to wear one (there are) or that you don't think on balance that blah blah and you're entitled to that belief. But this obtuse denial that there are even facts that work against your opinion makes you out to be one of the most blinkered people I've ever had the displeasure of reading. Honestly you are stupid in a way that only a smart person can ever achieve. You're like an epistemological suicide bomber, just wrecking the marketplace of ideas by exploding your nonsense everywhere. Utterly impossible to have any kind of rational conversation with you around. The Adam Smith Ayatollah. How fucking right I was.
Quite honoured to be compared to Adam Smith, thank you.
You can swear at me as much as you like, I'm being polite with you, and you're not going to bully me into thinking that's a reason when its not.
Should we wear masks in normal circumstances pre-Covid? No, of course not, nor should we now. If someone's time is up, their time is up, and if they're unvaccinated then that's their choice not mine.
It’s pretty sick. The Belarus government seems to be not simply facilitating, but encouraging migrants, whom they then herd to the border. The Poles push back any who cross - and many will die this winter.
R4 WATO Belarus are issuing visas and arranging "tours" from Syria.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
Apart from the one where it lowers the risk of you infecting other people. That's a reason.
No it isn't.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
I think when it comes to vaccines a lot of people have an understanding gleaned from stories about smallpox or measles vaccines.
We know that the smallpox vaccine means that smallpox is now extinct in the wild, and survives only as lab samples. We know that high vaccination rates for measles are important because they produce herd immunity which also protects those who cannot be vaccinated.
In both cases vaccination means that the disease actually, or essentially, disappears.
So, if Covid hasn't disappeared then they see the need for other interventions until it does.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
I am going to write to him about it. I have no issue with including trans people in the poster (no-one should be hateful to them because of what they are). I have a huge problem with him ignoring women - both in the poster and in the Pride campaign.
And if Labour want my vote they are not going to get it by ignoring my very existence. I have lived long enough to recognise sexism when I see it. This is just the latest variant of it.
A Google search of "gay marriage" images gives more male than female in the first three rows, whereas with Bing it is more female than male. I've no idea what this means, probably nothing, but otoh six out of 28 of the posters you saw might mean women are under-represented but surely does not mean they are "ignored". What's the ratio of male to female Pride posters in the Lake District?
The EU’s negotiations have been widely seen as a major success for both Brussels and Dublin. This report shows that to be far from the case. The EU ‘forced’ the UK to accept a solution that worked legally for the EU but worked neither operationally nor. politically in the context of Northern Ireland. In imposing its solution it had forced one interpretation of a pre-existing and politically significant international agreement over another; it then populated this interpretation with assumptions and exaggerations to produce the case for alignment. It did all this while turning a blind eye to the complexities and fragilities of Northern Ireland. Its manoeuvres were effective but often little more than manipulative. It was a remarkable failure of politics and it has resulted in an unstable ‘solution’ to the border problem. The UK’s judgement was that the solution could only be finalised in the light of the EU-UK future relationship and that it had to be based on a deep, properly balanced and fully nuanced reading of the Belfast Agreement. Events have proved that judgement right.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
Apart from the one where it lowers the risk of you infecting other people. That's a reason.
No it isn't.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
I think when it comes to vaccines a lot of people have an understanding gleaned from stories about smallpox or measles vaccines.
We know that the smallpox vaccine means that smallpox is now extinct in the wild, and survives only as lab samples. We know that high vaccination rates for measles are important because they produce herd immunity which also protects those who cannot be vaccinated.
In both cases vaccination means that the disease actually, or essentially, disappears.
So, if Covid hasn't disappeared then they see the need for other interventions until it does.
I can understand this without agreeing with it.
What about flu jabs? Isn't that where we are with COVID?
Given MoL is a big full-time job the MP side must have been skimped. Unless of course he worked his tail off dawn to dusk to make sure nothing got neglected. Maybe that's what happened. It's only an almost impossible notion.
As for Cox, people are missing the important point that with his megaphone of a voice - oh god can you remember it during the parliamentary Brexit debates? - he is perfectly capable of talking to his constituents from the Caribbean.
Great point. There’s a guy in our office who’s Just the same.
And I always seem to sit in the same carriage as him when I get the train anywhere.
For me it’s always someone eating crisps or an apple loudly.
Eating on the tube is plain bad manners. There really is no reason why you cannot wait until you get off and get home or go to a cafe. Ditto doing your make up, nails or - as I once saw - flossing your teeth.
Some people really do behave like oafs in public.
I used to love rolling cigarettes in non-smoking carriages (note to younger readers: there really were smoking carriages on the tube up to 1988ish) with a view to smoking them later. A great wind-up.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
Apart from the one where it lowers the risk of you infecting other people. That's a reason.
No it isn't.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
I think when it comes to vaccines a lot of people have an understanding gleaned from stories about smallpox or measles vaccines.
We know that the smallpox vaccine means that smallpox is now extinct in the wild, and survives only as lab samples. We know that high vaccination rates for measles are important because they produce herd immunity which also protects those who cannot be vaccinated.
In both cases vaccination means that the disease actually, or essentially, disappears.
So, if Covid hasn't disappeared then they see the need for other interventions until it does.
I can understand this without agreeing with it.
The virus isn't going to disappear, its endemic.
People will catch the virus. Get used to it and accept it.
I've come to terms with the fact that the virus is going to be endemic and people will catch it. Hopefully @Farooq and others will accept reality as it is rather than going on foul-mouthed diatribes in some delusional belief that everyone who is prepared to live with Covid is a heartless monster.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
@kinabalu has half a point. I do think there is a dash of Islamophobia in the general dislike of Khan, but only inasmuch as he seems to be a certain kind of joyless Muslim. He's teetotal. He has a reedy voice which always sounds like he is expressing peevish disapproval. He bans fireworks. He bans sexy posters on the Tube. He doesn't like parties. He doesn't say the word "sex".
And he did consort with some iffy Islamist characters when he was a lawyer, and he said some unwise things.
However, if he was a bit more fun and charismatic, if he could loosen up and look like he enjoys life, I am sure his religion would not enter the minds of 99.9% of people
Mostly, he is just useless. That's it.
Yes, thank you. It is undeniable. Just take a look at some of the abuse he gets. It's pretty lurid and irrational. As for you, and seeing as we're rather cosy atm, I don't pick that up as a major factor in your Khan antipathy. I think you hate him for the same reason you love BoJo. You like big colourful risque personas (which is how you see yourself) and Khan's the opposite. In fact that's what you're saying in this post, isn't it, so no great insight from me there.
Half right. I don't see myself as this risque character, and that's not why I want one as mayor.
It's because a great mayor of a world city NEEDS to be a big, upbeat, can-do character. The best New York mayors have all been like this. Hizonnah
Boris and Ken both had the right kind of optimism combined with sizeable personalities (sadly Ken sank into drunken madness). Khan is a peevish mouse of a man, who doesn't drink and disapproves of everyone and everything. It's just not a good fit for London. Labour would be insane to make him leader
And now I must do the risque thing of taking my old wine racks to be recycled. Later
Wouldn't refilled be better?
What does having a wine rack recycled even mean?
Scrap metal or wood skip as appropriate, I expect (or cardboard in the case of old supermarket wine carriers).
What's also interesting about the EU denial of having escalation measures to threaten the UK is that the way it has been communicated is very similar to how the commission told the French to get fucked as well. Ireland have been told they are on their own, essentially. Ireland have been begging publicly and privately for the EU to take a tougher line on the UK pulling the A16 lever, we now know that this is not going to happen. There is no solidarity and ultimately Italian wineries want to sell us prosecco. It's funny to have to go back to that old canard but now that we have the TCA in place there is no appetite to pull it apart. The EU countries got what they wanted out of it, the ability to keep selling is wine, cars and meat without any threat of the UK putting up tariffs. That is never going to be jeopardised.
Once again, the twitter blue tick wankers and those who live and die by every word they write were wrong. They were wrong on the TCA, they were wrong on the French fishing issues and now they're wrong about the EU readying retaliatory measures out of the scope of the NI protocol. One day, maybe soon, everyone will simply ignore everything they say. In most cases they take a position more extreme and pro-EU than even the commission is willing to take.
Let's have a prediction then. Are we going to trigger Art 16? And if so what will it lead to?
If the EU are sensible they'll cave from the mere threat of Article 16, so thus avoiding the need to trigger it. If you can get what you want without triggering it but my merely threatening to do so, then job done.
If we do trigger it, then it will lead to the UK unilaterally rewriting the Protocol and setting "the facts on the ground" in a way that suits the UK best. Since the EU will have no realistic way of forcing the UK to back down, they'll have little choice but to accept those new facts on the ground as the new reality, which is why they may as well negotiate now rather than hand the UK complete unilateral control.
I was asking Max but, ok, you've answered and that'll do since you two are Kylie and Jason on this stuff. So, either the EU will cave so we don't have to trigger Art 16 or we will trigger it and then they'll cave. Great. You haven't disappointed.
But what we must do to prevent you becoming an 'unwitting vector' of rewriting history when things transpire differently is define what you mean by them caving and us getting what we want.
My suggestion as to the litmus test is ECJ oversight of SM rules affecting NI. I think this is their genuine red line and we'll end up accepting it in the final outcome - which imo will arise with no Art 16 triggering (since we are bluffing) but that's a slightly separate point.
So, if the ECJ goes (substance and form) they've caved and we've won. And if it stays we've caved and they've won.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
Chris Curtis @chriscurtis94 · 3h But it is also worth putting the latest drop in context. The Tory lead has been falling consistently since the "vaccine bounce" came to an end in May.
Looking at this chart, it seems more like the continuation of a trend rather than a shock in response to this week's news.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
Apart from the one where it lowers the risk of you infecting other people. That's a reason.
No it isn't.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
I think when it comes to vaccines a lot of people have an understanding gleaned from stories about smallpox or measles vaccines.
We know that the smallpox vaccine means that smallpox is now extinct in the wild, and survives only as lab samples. We know that high vaccination rates for measles are important because they produce herd immunity which also protects those who cannot be vaccinated.
In both cases vaccination means that the disease actually, or essentially, disappears.
So, if Covid hasn't disappeared then they see the need for other interventions until it does.
I can understand this without agreeing with it.
The virus isn't going to disappear, its endemic.
People will catch the virus. Get used to it and accept it.
I've come to terms with the fact that the virus is going to be endemic and people will catch it. Hopefully @Farooq and others will accept reality as it is rather than going on foul-mouthed diatribes in some delusional belief that everyone who is prepared to live with Covid is a heartless monster.
I haven't expressed any view that you ascribe to me there. You are imagining my view because you think that's the reason I'm objecting to the things you say. But you're wrong. I'm objecting to your fake absolutes. It's idiotic to say "there are no reasons" when there are plainly reasons. Am I saying you must wear a mask? No. Am I saying we can get rid of Covid? No. Am I saying safety in all circumstances and freedom only as an afterthought? No. You imagine these things because I am the one who points out that the way you write is littered with false absolutes.
I'm sad for you, because you are so gripped by your ideology that it makes you blind. You don't know what other people are saying to you when they disagree because you're so fixated on being right. And that's what makes you wrong more often than you need to be. It's one thing to be so blinkered to possible counterarguments, that's depressingly normal. But to pretend they don't even exist when you encounter them is a little tragic.
God let's hope you never get into a discussion with @HYUFD about who is a Tory.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
Are you suggesting that Gen X haven't been able to afford to get on the property ladder?
When we were at the hospital for the birth of our son last month, I was surprised they told us not to bother wearing our masks in the little room you go to after the delivery. They also didn’t mind us not wearing them on the ward on that day, although the next day the different nurse in charge was stricter on it.
We had both got the Covid all clear test wise, as required, but I would have thought Boris has too. Wouldn’t the PM be tested for it daily?
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this But if you're thinking it, I am too. I doubt we'd be the only ones.
Ah but hang on. Take gardenwalker for eg, I am totally NOT thinking this. I must have read 1000 of his posts and not a trace of anti-muslim prejudice. Not even thinking it about leon where there has been fruitiness sometimes. Tbh it's more about where you see the quite wild-eyed or very personal stuff said about Khan. I think he's testified about it. He gets a lot. There, you have racism rearing its head, no question. What you also get, of course, is the slightly brighter, cagey type of racist who keeps a grip on what they say and stays carefully deniable. You know the type.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
Are you suggesting that Gen X haven't been able to afford to get on the property ladder?
Depressing week isn't it? Belarus-Polish migration nastiness, imminent famine in Afghanistan, COP26 seeming to go out with a whimper, and a good old dose of UK sleaze.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this But if you're thinking it, I am too. I doubt we'd be the only ones.
Ah but hang on. Take gardenwalker for eg, I am totally NOT thinking this. I must have read 1000 of his posts and not a trace of anti-muslim prejudice. Not even thinking it about leon where there has been fruitiness sometimes. Tbh it's more about where you see the quite wild-eyed stuff said about him. I think he's testified about it. He gets a lot. There, you have racism rearing its head, no question. What you also get is the slightly brighter and cagey type of racist who keeps a grip on what they say and stays carefully deniable. You know the type.
Ah yes. The people you "just know" are racist, but haven't actually done anything racist.
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
Most men are probably looking subconsciously for ....fertility in a new partner to be honest.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
Are you suggesting that Gen X haven't been able to afford to get on the property ladder?
No.
Good. As a Millenial, I think Gen X have had it pretty good what with ultra low interest rates for the last 12 years.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
Are you suggesting that Gen X haven't been able to afford to get on the property ladder?
I think he is implying that Gen X weren't brought up in a particularly affluent or permissive time, and therefore have less of an inbuilt sense of entitlement. If he is, then I would tend to agree.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
Apart from the one where it lowers the risk of you infecting other people. That's a reason.
No it isn't.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
I think when it comes to vaccines a lot of people have an understanding gleaned from stories about smallpox or measles vaccines.
We know that the smallpox vaccine means that smallpox is now extinct in the wild, and survives only as lab samples. We know that high vaccination rates for measles are important because they produce herd immunity which also protects those who cannot be vaccinated.
In both cases vaccination means that the disease actually, or essentially, disappears.
So, if Covid hasn't disappeared then they see the need for other interventions until it does.
I can understand this without agreeing with it.
The virus isn't going to disappear, its endemic.
People will catch the virus. Get used to it and accept it.
I've come to terms with the fact that the virus is going to be endemic and people will catch it. Hopefully @Farooq and others will accept reality as it is rather than going on foul-mouthed diatribes in some delusional belief that everyone who is prepared to live with Covid is a heartless monster.
I haven't expressed any view that you ascribe to me there. You are imagining my view because you think that's the reason I'm objecting to the things you say. But you're wrong. I'm objecting to your fake absolutes. It's idiotic to say "there are no reasons" when there are plainly reasons. Am I saying you must wear a mask? No. Am I saying we can get rid of Covid? No. Am I saying safety in all circumstances and freedom only as an afterthought? No. You imagine these things because I am the one who points out that the way you write is littered with false absolutes.
I'm sad for you, because you are so gripped by your ideology that it makes you blind. You don't know what other people are saying to you when they disagree because you're so fixated on being right. And that's what makes you wrong more often than you need to be. It's one thing to be so blinkered to possible counterarguments, that's depressingly normal. But to pretend they don't even exist when you encounter them is a little tragic.
PT wasn't always like that. I remember him putting forward very well considered arguments to support his various cases over the years, even though I didn't usually agree with them. Now, though, many of his arguments, such as they are, are merely simplistic and misguided assertions. It has indeed been sad to witness.
Do you wear a mask in prior years so you don't pass on the flu, or a cold, or anything else unwittingly? If not, I see absolutely no reason to wear one this year either.
Absolutely no reason? So, you're saying that rates of infectious respiratory disease this year are absolutely the same as in 2019 and before?
They're comparable, yes.
There's Covid this year, but we have vaccines for that, so forget about it.
Yes, they are comparable, in the sense that I can compare the figures now and the figures in 2019 and see the huge friggin' difference. For example:
2019: flu deaths 1213. Last seven days: COVID-19 deaths 1191.
So, in the last week, COVID-19 has killed about the same number as all the deaths from flu in 2019. (And we still have flu this year too.) Looks to me like maybe there is some reason to wear a mask this year compared to in the past.
2019 Respiratory disease deaths 72,440
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
Apart from the one where it lowers the risk of you infecting other people. That's a reason.
No it isn't.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
I think when it comes to vaccines a lot of people have an understanding gleaned from stories about smallpox or measles vaccines.
We know that the smallpox vaccine means that smallpox is now extinct in the wild, and survives only as lab samples. We know that high vaccination rates for measles are important because they produce herd immunity which also protects those who cannot be vaccinated.
In both cases vaccination means that the disease actually, or essentially, disappears.
So, if Covid hasn't disappeared then they see the need for other interventions until it does.
I can understand this without agreeing with it.
The virus isn't going to disappear, its endemic.
People will catch the virus. Get used to it and accept it.
I've come to terms with the fact that the virus is going to be endemic and people will catch it. Hopefully @Farooq and others will accept reality as it is rather than going on foul-mouthed diatribes in some delusional belief that everyone who is prepared to live with Covid is a heartless monster.
I haven't expressed any view that you ascribe to me there. You are imagining my view because you think that's the reason I'm objecting to the things you say. But you're wrong. I'm objecting to your fake absolutes. It's idiotic to say "there are no reasons" when there are plainly reasons. Am I saying you must wear a mask? No. Am I saying we can get rid of Covid? No. Am I saying safety in all circumstances and freedom only as an afterthought? No. You imagine these things because I am the one who points out that the way you write is littered with false absolutes.
I'm sad for you, because you are so gripped by your ideology that it makes you blind. You don't know what other people are saying to you when they disagree because you're so fixated on being right. And that's what makes you wrong more often than you need to be. It's one thing to be so blinkered to possible counterarguments, that's depressingly normal. But to pretend they don't even exist when you encounter them is a little tragic.
God let's hope you never get into a discussion with @HYUFD about who is a Tory.
Or they get in a threesome with PT himself (metaphorically, I hasten to add).
Comments
The usual metric is "influenza and pneumonia" with a run/death rate of around 30,000/year pre-Covid.
Seven day average 1393
Get your jab against the virus, no reason to wear a mask. None.
The Belarus government seems to be not simply facilitating, but encouraging migrants, whom they then herd to the border. The Poles push back any who cross - and many will die this winter.
Then again, he was elected MoL so good for him. In my view the less most politicians do the better.
Shortly after she had given birth, we were visited by two midwives, one of whom was male. Mrs J did not mind in the least.
As a positive aside: was running around Eddington today (the new development in NW Cambridge) and came across a woman with a newborn baby. She said she was a graduate (I think at Girton), and had been allowed to take a year off her studies to have the baby; had been given subsidised accommodation for this academic year, a place for the little 'un in a creche next academic year, and help for her family when they came over to visit. It all seemed very sane and helpful. She was rather keen to talk...
She had that very familiar sleep-deprived-but-joyous look of a new mother. Quite wonderful.
And he did consort with some iffy Islamist characters when he was a lawyer, and he said some unwise things.
However, if he was a bit more fun and charismatic, if he could loosen up and look like he enjoys life, I am sure his religion would not enter the minds of 99.9% of people
Mostly, he is just useless. That's it.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/deathsduetocovid19comparedwithdeathsfrominfluenzaandpneumonia
1. The notion that mask wearing reduces the birth rate is pushing me towards the "Wear a mask everywhere forever" camp.
2. I used to have a district councilor who had emigrated to the Dominican Republic. If you wanted to get in touch, you had to fork out for an international phone call. He would pop back to Blighty to attend a couple of council meetings and make sure that he could still claim his allowances. After a year or two of negative headlines and ongoing criticism, he stood down. Sadly, he was replaced by a Lib Dem.
If a small Cumbrian village can do it so can the London Mayor. Miserable git.
I wonder if there's any way of working out the answer here... Maybe we could look at the US, where Republicans have spurned the former and embraced the latter, going down the road of opposing masks and vaccination, and downing anti-worming tablets.
Its also noteworthy of course that the Covid "deaths" includes both people who died after having a Covid positive test even if they died from other reasons, and it also includes the unvaccinated who should have had their jab.
Stop spreading antivaxx hysteria. Drop your mask, get your jab.
It is pure madness
https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/deathsduetocovid19comparedwithdeathsfrominfluenzaandpneumonia
I’ve very little interest in politicising the mask debate, and in any event, vaccination has taken much of the urgency out of it.
Visiting a hospital, though ? Just stupid/thoughtless.
Vaccines work. The rest of that bullshit doesn't.
And if Labour want my vote they are not going to get it by ignoring my very existence. I have lived long enough to recognise sexism when I see it. This is just the latest variant of it.
It is the arguments I was tackling, not the people. You fail to understand the difference?
Some people really do behave like oafs in public.
Mandatory vaccination will cause controversy, as it has done in social care. But the care sector will welcome this equalisation - staff have been leaving care to go to NHS and avoid vax.
Rule comes in from April 1st next year for NHS staff.
Care staff meanwhile must be double vaccinated by this Thursday, 11th Nov.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1458076668438982658
'Stop spreading antivaxx hysteria. Drop your mask, get your jab.'
When the online equivalent of mouthy pricks jabbing me in the chest start telling people what to do I'm afraid their arguments somewhat pass me by.
They're all waiting, and there's apparently not a whole lot of social distancing. What's the point of a mass same time invite. I mean I had one for a speeding fine at the court once, but how can it be appropriate for a hospital, particularly in a pandemic ?
It's because a great mayor of a world city NEEDS to be a big, upbeat, can-do character. The best New York mayors have all been like this. Hizonnah
Boris and Ken both had the right kind of optimism combined with sizeable personalities (sadly Ken sank into drunken madness). Khan is a peevish mouse of a man, who doesn't drink and disapproves of everyone and everything. It's just not a good fit for London. Labour would be insane to make him leader
And now I must do the risque thing of taking my old wine racks to be recycled. Later
Its rather more than 1213
(Just getting my coat...)
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1457650071332347904?t=UG5LiRZ05LR7Wd2-YHjNCg&s=19
1st round:
- Macron : 23%
- Zemmour: 18%
- Le Pen : 15%
- Bertrand : 14%
- Mélenchon : 10%
- Jadot : 8%
- Hidalgo : 4%
2nd round:
- Macron : 58%
- Zemmour : 42%
https://twitter.com/rclmt/status/1458036686269648906
By pushing continued mask-wearing, because Boris Johnson is anti-masks, many lefty political figures are encouraging a more atomized society that weakens left-wing politics.
I suggest a re-read of Rosa Luxemburg's The Mass Strike.
The idea that mask wearing has anything to do with it is more than a bit odd.
The reality is that in developed economies, women have educational and employment opportunities which make marriage under the old terms look exceedingly unattractive.
Many years ago when I lived and worked in London.
It was gross.
If others get infected, they get infected. They should have been vaccinated.
If anyone is of the impression that they have no requirements to get vaccinated because they are protected by others masks instead, then that is a form of moral hazard I will hold no truck with.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
The root of the current difficulty in NI (beside Brexit) is the EU/IRE pushed an unbalanced interpretation of the Good Friday Agreement which the UK eventually signed up to even though it disagreed. This was then locked in with the Dec 2017 joint report. Often overlooked 3/17
The CRUCIAL point: “The EU ‘forced’* the UK to accept a solution that worked legally for the EU but worked neither operationally nor politically in the context of Northern Ireland.” Reinforced below👇 7/17
*not forced—May could have fought and made case for no-deal to parliament
https://twitter.com/tommctague/status/1458078953151811595?s=21
Keep swearing if you like. There is no such thing as "safe", there is risk to everything in life.
Do you ever get behind the wheels of a car, is that "safe"?
I broke down on the motorway this weekend - without warning one of my tyres failed. Thankfully I wasn't in an accident and was able to get the tyre replaced with the spare, but it was risky when it happened so should I never ever drive again?
If people get infected, they get infected. If I get infected, I get infected. So be it.
If sex and gender are not the same as they keep saying then one does not include the other.
It is - bluntly - yet another way in which plain old-fashioned sexism cloaks itself.
But if society is to return to some kind of normality (and in the context of no one pre-Covid wearing masks when in public, even with off-putting symptoms of cold/flu) masks have to be jettisoned.
I do not want to live in a society where masks are forever more part of our culture. You may wish to and that is perfectly understandable. It will eventually I suppose be up to the voters to decide.
Lord only knows how it is that much of the Western world, including to a large extent the government and the law, have got us into this Alice-in-Wonderland lunacy. It was certainly not with the consent of the population.
Oh and like gaslighting I can never remember which is which of sex and gender. One you have and one you decide isn't it but I can never remember which.
It seems for all other parties now that the very notion women even exist is anathema.
The irony is that groups like these are simply rejecting the very simple message which women have fought for - "No means no."
They are behaving like the very worst old-fashioned sexist. Denying that sexuality is based on sex and claiming that it is to do with societal prejudices also seems to me to be homophobic.
It is lunacy and dangerous. And risks a backlash which will likely harm the very people she claims to want to represent.
https://legacysite1.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Northern-Ireland-Protocol.pdf
You can swear at me as much as you like, I'm being polite with you, and you're not going to bully me into thinking that's a reason when its not.
Should we wear masks in normal circumstances pre-Covid? No, of course not, nor should we now. If someone's time is up, their time is up, and if they're unvaccinated then that's their choice not mine.
https://www.reuters.com/article/europe-migrants-belarus-sanctions-idAFB5N2N804F
We know that the smallpox vaccine means that smallpox is now extinct in the wild, and survives only as lab samples. We know that high vaccination rates for measles are important because they produce herd immunity which also protects those who cannot be vaccinated.
In both cases vaccination means that the disease actually, or essentially, disappears.
So, if Covid hasn't disappeared then they see the need for other interventions until it does.
I can understand this without agreeing with it.
The TfL press release for the Pride roundels shows eight out of the ten designers/staff involved are men. Maybe that is part of the problem.
https://tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com/news/tfl-press-release-well-known-lgbtq-londoners-and-tfl-staff-design-new-pride-roundels
https://legacysite1.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Northern-Ireland-Protocol.pdf
People will catch the virus. Get used to it and accept it.
I've come to terms with the fact that the virus is going to be endemic and people will catch it. Hopefully @Farooq and others will accept reality as it is rather than going on foul-mouthed diatribes in some delusional belief that everyone who is prepared to live with Covid is a heartless monster.
Turns out border checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic aren’t a danger to peace when the Republic wants them.
But what we must do to prevent you becoming an 'unwitting vector' of rewriting history when things transpire differently is define what you mean by them caving and us getting what we want.
My suggestion as to the litmus test is ECJ oversight of SM rules affecting NI. I think this is their genuine red line and we'll end up accepting it in the final outcome - which imo will arise with no Art 16 triggering (since we are bluffing) but that's a slightly separate point.
So, if the ECJ goes (substance and form) they've caved and we've won. And if it stays we've caved and they've won.
Happy with that?
I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
“But there are three things we shouldn't forget:
1) Midterm blues are common. Most parties suffer in the middle of a parliament before improving their polling position in the run-up to an election.
2) Labour's polling still isn't great. Starmer's personal ratings are down, with voters viewing him as competent, but not strong enough for the top job.
https://news.sky.com/story/keir-starmer-must-confront-an-unfortunate-question-as-he-prepares-for-his-first-labour-conference-12416543…
Even when the government's doing badly, we still see few Tory voters willing to switch straight over.
3) Johnson is the king of comebacks. He has twice turned around the Tories fortunes (Brexit in 2019, the vaccine rollout in early 2021).
So while the Tory lead has shrunk, and may continue to shrink, I wouldn't bet against him finding a way to turn the story around again”
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1458011567719596036?s=20
We had both got the Covid all clear test wise, as required, but I would have thought Boris has too. Wouldn’t the PM be tested for it daily?
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
If he is, then I would tend to agree.