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).
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.
This is one of the saddest trends of my lifetime: to see this new generation of roundheads and puritans come to prominence, and along with it the ridiculous idea that any kind of hedonism is sinful. And doing so from a left wing point of view.
It plays into the right wingers' hands and is completely counter-productive. People just want to have fun. It's particularly annoying in the climate change context because it reinforces the silly stereotype that the problem is people having fun and enjoying life, and we all need to become miserable hermits in order to fix the climate. And by extension that it is somehow in the hands of the consumer. No we don't: we need to treat global warming as a problem of industrial waste disposal, as it truly is, and put in place proper costs and restrictions on the emission of CO2, NO2 and Methane.
I like to think like you that Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy.
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.
Unless you're a Labour, LibDem, Green or SNP supporter in which case it's quite difficult not to snigger. Albeit in private.
I can't quite believe the luck. I mean, obvs I knew Boris Johnson was a schmuck. I just didn't realise he'd drop the veil to the nation quite so suddenly.
'Instead, we found the PM skulking in a radiology department, trying to change the subject to Covid. That in itself tells you quite how bad things are. Changing the subject to talk about something he’s handled as badly as Covid has the ring of “Can we talk instead about how I can’t live on £160,000 and two free houses?”, or “Can we talk instead about how my wife’s five years older than my daughter?” I suppose you have to concede the quality of the white goods he’s hiding in has improved. He’s graduated from a fridge to a CT scan machine.'
"Online policing doesn’t stop at tech giants Safety bill is aimed at reining in social media but its effects will be felt much more widely and threaten free speech Hugo Rifkind" (£)
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
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
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.
Unless you're a Labour, LibDem, Green or SNP supporter in which case it's quite difficult not to snigger. Albeit in private.
I can't quite believe the luck. I mean, obvs I knew Boris Johnson was a schmuck. I just didn't realise he'd drop the veil to the nation quite so suddenly.
Drop the trousers, surely: not so much gaslighting but deliberately moonlighting, it has seemed at times.
Edit: not what I think, but the general public, which is what counts.
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.
I’m sure Sadiq gets some fruity stuff directed at him on social media. Welcome to the internet, sadly.
But evidence of some nut jobs is insufficient to prove widespread or significant nutjobbery.
In my broad experience, Sadiq is not hated (let alone reviled as a Muslim), he’s just considered a total non-entity.
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.
Yeah when I reread what I wrote I understood why you thought I meant that. What I meant was that right now millenials' low property ownership rates were contributing to them leaning left politically, but that as they got older that would change (logically speaking, when the baby boomers are dead someone else will be owning the housing). Gen x have done OK property wise, certainly compared to millenials.
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...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
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.
Unless you're a Labour, LibDem, Green or SNP supporter in which case it's quite difficult not to snigger. Albeit in private.
I can't quite believe the luck. I mean, obvs I knew Boris Johnson was a schmuck. I just didn't realise he'd drop the veil to the nation quite so suddenly.
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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
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
I think you are right in that this boils down to biology. We are able to use our rational brain (the medial prefrontal cortex) to examine and modulate our emotions. But I know of no mechanism that works the other way around - whereby we can use rational thinking to generate deep and powerful emotions de novo. Amplify existing emotions, maybe. Create completely new ones, I don't see 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.
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.
Yeah when I reread what I wrote I understood why you thought I meant that. What I meant was that right now millenials' low property ownership rates were contributing to them leaning left politically, but that as they got older that would change (logically speaking, when the baby boomers are dead someone else will be owning the housing). Gen x have done OK property wise, certainly compared to millenials.
Interesting idea.
Reminds me of how the peace and love hippies of the 60s became the naval gazers of the 70s and then the selfish yuppies of the 80s.
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.
Don't be a snowflake. We all express ourselves on here robustly, as does PT (and HYUFD).
It's the equivalent of someone walking into an art gallery, looking at an early Matisse and saying: "that's shit". Well of course the translation is: "oh look a piece of art whose author I appreciate takes his place in the pantheon of great artists but I don't much care for it."
Life's too short.
PT leaves no one in any doubt about his views and hence it is up to us to argue back. You know that he will be relentlessly thorough in the portrayal of his position. I agree with almost nothing he says but he makes me refine and think about my own argument constantly.
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 can't quite see how that is the logic of the quoted position. The extrapolation is that she'd be saying to a white person who rules out black sexual partners -
"It's a personal matter, and you shouldn't feel pressurized to change, but it's worth you considering the extent to which societal prejudices might have shaped your feelings on this."
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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
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...
The same as those racist coppers who look at black people and say "he's a criminal" then fit them up for crimes they didn't commit.
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.
I’m sure Sadiq gets some fruity stuff directed at him on social media. Welcome to the internet, sadly.
But evidence of some nut jobs is insufficient to prove widespread or significant nutjobbery.
In my broad experience, Sadiq is not hated (let alone reviled as a Muslim), he’s just considered a total non-entity.
Actually Khan faces some of the worst and most credible threats to his safety and that of his family of any British politician, both from the far right and from Islamists. As someone who follows him on FB I can attest to the widespread anti Muslim prejudice that his every post seems to draw. Personally I think he has been a disappointingly low-key mayor, although I think he's done nothing really wrong and has done some great things like improving air quality by extending the Ulez. He's had to contend with a malicious and hostile central govt the whole time too, which hasn't helped.
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.
It would be very foolish to write Boris off but this has damaged him within the party and that is important
No 10 has announced there will be a new vote next week to rescind the Paterson motion and allow the House to approve the Standards Commissioner's verdict on him
On Friday we have the conclusion of COP26 which looks like it will not reach the targets expected and because of the Commons furore very few must have realised Obama was there yesterday and gave a speech
The A16 is coming down the track in the next few weeks, and two pre Christmas by elections as well
The recent poll falls have not benefitted Labour with the Greens and REFUK gaining votes which does not auger well for Starmer who has had a very good week but seems uninspiring to many
However, this has changed the narrative and GE24 is very much in play from increased Conservative majority to even a Labour one
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?
Yes. I think that's the better comparison to make, but I think many of the people arguing for NPIs are not making that comparison. They're hoping Covid will eventually go away (like measles) rather than continue at a tolerable background level (like flu).
It's why the discussions on this are a dialogue of the deaf. People are coming at it from a completely different set of assumptions and so can't agree on how to respond.
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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
Millenials/Gen Y are the least politically engaged generation, by and large we don't care who is in government as long as they pubs are open and we've got a reasonably good job to pay for beers at the pub. At least that's my experience of living it, I'm sure others have different ones. One of my friends was agonising over her vote in 2019 but ultimately it was a matter of conscience because she lives in Islington North, I didn't have the heart to explain just how little her vote would count.
This is quite something. Two different backbench Tory MPs tell me they have been approached by whips in the last 24 hours to tell them the Chief, Mark Spencer, was NOT the instigator of last week's disastrous motion, but he was following direct orders from the PM. It means...
...government whips have (officially or not) begun actively briefing against No10. Sources close to Spencer emphatically deny he sanctioned this. Govt source: “It was a Government decison. It’s a team game, we stand or fall together”. More on @TimesRadio at 4pm.
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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I am turning 46 in less than a week! Definitely gen x. Although I do like a bit of avocado toast.
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
That's a certainly an example of an increasing leftwing authoritarianism, but we also live in an age of increasing and Victorian "work" authoritarianism, coming from the right.
An article I saw recently at the Daily Mirror, on the large number of families about to be forced into destitution and homelessness by the UC cut, and extensively backed up and comprehensively sourced with quotes from the Resolution Foundation, was almost full to the brim with replies to the effect that these were all lazy fraudsters and shirkers, and it was their fault. That is a historically Labour-supporting newspaper, not the Daily Mail. This sort of extreme and Victorian, workhouse authoritarianism is no less widespread, dangerous and pervasive now than some recent trends on the left.
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.
I’m sure Sadiq gets some fruity stuff directed at him on social media. Welcome to the internet, sadly.
But evidence of some nut jobs is insufficient to prove widespread or significant nutjobbery.
In my broad experience, Sadiq is not hated (let alone reviled as a Muslim), he’s just considered a total non-entity.
Actually Khan faces some of the worst and most credible threats to his safety and that of his family of any British politician, both from the far right and from Islamists. As someone who follows him on FB I can attest to the widespread anti Muslim prejudice that his every post seems to draw. Personally I think he has been a disappointingly low-key mayor, although I think he's done nothing really wrong and has done some great things like improving air quality by extending the Ulez. He's had to contend with a malicious and hostile central govt the whole time too, which hasn't helped.
Well, it’s true I don’t follow him online. I just talk to fellow Londoners and black cab drivers about him.
He has had a hostile central government, but that’s no excuse for his overwhelming lack of ambition or action. Look at Paris for what can be achieved with a bit of vision.
Anyway, enough of him; he is too boring to merit longer discussion.
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.
While I have sympathy with Cyclefree’s points, that absolutely is not the logic of Stonewall’s position, and I’m a bit surprised at you, Richard.
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.
Yeah when I reread what I wrote I understood why you thought I meant that. What I meant was that right now millenials' low property ownership rates were contributing to them leaning left politically, but that as they got older that would change (logically speaking, when the baby boomers are dead someone else will be owning the housing). Gen x have done OK property wise, certainly compared to millenials.
Interesting idea.
Reminds me of how the peace and love hippies of the 60s became the naval gazers of the 70s and then the selfish yuppies of the 80s.
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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
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 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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I am turning 46 in less than a week! Definitely gen x. Although I do like a bit of avocado toast.
I've pulled off the remarkable feat of being a millenial who buys avocados and managed to get a mortgage.
And I don't even like avocados (they're for my millenial partner).
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 can't quite see how that is the logic of the quoted position. The extrapolation is that she'd be saying to a white person who rules out black sexual partners -
"It's a personal matter, and you shouldn't feel pressurized to change, but it's worth you considering the extent to which societal prejudices might have shaped your feelings on this."
What's the massive problem?
Because, as with my lady friend who thinks I should fancy older women like her, there is definitely the suggestion of shame, a moral failing in YOU, if you have these sexual preferences (whether by age, race, sex/gender or whatever)
And that is absurd. No one can help their sexuality, that is the whole point of gay liberation. Now it is being turned on its head by the Woke.
Incidentally my lady friend's Woke Weirdness was briskly underlined when she then admitted (after denouncing my sexual preferences) that after her menopause she essentially no longer had a libido anyway, anymore, so she was denouncing me for not desiring sex.... with someone who doesn't want sex
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.
I’m sure Sadiq gets some fruity stuff directed at him on social media. Welcome to the internet, sadly.
But evidence of some nut jobs is insufficient to prove widespread or significant nutjobbery.
In my broad experience, Sadiq is not hated (let alone reviled as a Muslim), he’s just considered a total non-entity.
Actually Khan faces some of the worst and most credible threats to his safety and that of his family of any British politician, both from the far right and from Islamists. As someone who follows him on FB I can attest to the widespread anti Muslim prejudice that his every post seems to draw. Personally I think he has been a disappointingly low-key mayor, although I think he's done nothing really wrong and has done some great things like improving air quality by extending the Ulez. He's had to contend with a malicious and hostile central govt the whole time too, which hasn't helped.
I think recent events in my home county indicate that the notion of this country as having this sort of prejudice licked is wide of the mark.
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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
LOL. I try to be an optimist in most of life. Whether that is foreign policy, domestic politics, or the future of humanity in the hands of GenXers and Millennials.
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.
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.
Yes, I remember. You'd run for the tube, and as the doors closed you'd realise with horror that you were in the smoking carriage, and wait desperately to run further up the train at the next stop.
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 can't quite see how that is the logic of the quoted position. The extrapolation is that she'd be saying to a white person who rules out black sexual partners -
"It's a personal matter, and you shouldn't feel pressurized to change, but it's worth you considering the extent to which societal prejudices might have shaped your feelings on this."
What's the massive problem?
Because, as with my lady friend who thinks I should fancy older women like her, there is definitely the suggestion of shame, a moral failing in YOU, if you have these sexual preferences (whether by age, race, sex/gender or whatever)
And that is absurd. No one can help their sexuality, that is the whole point of gay liberation. Now it is being turned on its head by the Woke.
Incidentally my lady friend's Woke Weirdness was briskly underlined when she then admitted (after denouncing my sexual preferences) that after her menopause she essentially no longer had a libido anyway, anymore, so she was denouncing me for not desiring sex.... with someone who doesn't want sex
Somebody on here earlier was talking about taking their wine racks to be "recycled". That's the sort of absurd thing that extreme Wokeness leads to.
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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I am turning 46 in less than a week! Definitely gen x. Although I do like a bit of avocado toast.
Just one year off what is generally accepted as the peak for a man then - the magical 47. It's when it all comes together. What's been rising has fully arisen. What will decline is about to, but has not quite commenced that journey. All else solid as a rock and is now baked in.
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 can't quite see how that is the logic of the quoted position. The extrapolation is that she'd be saying to a white person who rules out black sexual partners -
"It's a personal matter, and you shouldn't feel pressurized to change, but it's worth you considering the extent to which societal prejudices might have shaped your feelings on this."
What's the massive problem?
Because, as with my lady friend who thinks I should fancy older women like her, there is definitely the suggestion of shame, a moral failing in YOU, if you have these sexual preferences (whether by age, race, sex/gender or whatever)
And that is absurd. No one can help their sexuality, that is the whole point of gay liberation. Now it is being turned on its head by the Woke.
Incidentally my lady friend's Woke Weirdness was briskly underlined when she then admitted (after denouncing my sexual preferences) that after her menopause she essentially no longer had a libido anyway, anymore, so she was denouncing me for not desiring sex.... with someone who doesn't want sex
Somebody on here earlier was talking about taking their wine racks to be "recycled". That's the sort of absurd thing that extreme Wokeness leads to.
Beg to differ. Recycling metal and card is easy, and wood can be reused or burnt. The bulk of waste has to be reduced. I realised this wehen some years back I went to see some dinosaur footprints on an open day in Oxfordshire and found the quarry had been dug solely to make a hole for waste - the stone was almost irrelevant. The region had run out of holes in the ground.
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.
Yeah when I reread what I wrote I understood why you thought I meant that. What I meant was that right now millenials' low property ownership rates were contributing to them leaning left politically, but that as they got older that would change (logically speaking, when the baby boomers are dead someone else will be owning the housing). Gen x have done OK property wise, certainly compared to millenials.
Interesting idea.
Reminds me of how the peace and love hippies of the 60s became the naval gazers of the 70s and then the selfish yuppies of the 80s.
And are now the Tory base!
Very much so. The TV adaptation of The History man was good at making that point.
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.
I’m sure Sadiq gets some fruity stuff directed at him on social media. Welcome to the internet, sadly.
But evidence of some nut jobs is insufficient to prove widespread or significant nutjobbery.
In my broad experience, Sadiq is not hated (let alone reviled as a Muslim), he’s just considered a total non-entity.
Actually Khan faces some of the worst and most credible threats to his safety and that of his family of any British politician, both from the far right and from Islamists. As someone who follows him on FB I can attest to the widespread anti Muslim prejudice that his every post seems to draw. Personally I think he has been a disappointingly low-key mayor, although I think he's done nothing really wrong and has done some great things like improving air quality by extending the Ulez. He's had to contend with a malicious and hostile central govt the whole time too, which hasn't helped.
Yes. And tbf I agree with what some are saying that this big old city needs a big old character in charge (to the extent the mayor is in charge).
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.
Happy with that?
Since I'm expecting a climbdown from Brussels, I also expect there to be a face-saving figleaf they can point to. Some supposed role for the ECJ, but completely neutered and with Britain maintaining the right to invoke Article 16 if the ECJ does get involved (so its there but not there) is quite possible I think.
There are far more substantive issues to address. It wouldn't surprise me if the ECJ being the hill they're prepared to die on, means that the EU gives ground on every other issue while keeping a tokenistic role for the ECJ. Thus winning that battle but losing the war.
A bit like Barnier getting completely obsessed over fish at the end of the TCA negotiations and Frost making out like a bandit on all the important issues like governance, divergence etc
I'm a millenial, just (40). Life's generally (ceteris paribus and all that) easier for those 5 years older than myself compared to those 5 years younger I think.
The recent poll falls have not benefitted Labour with the Greens and REFUK gaining votes which does not auger well for Starmer who has had a very good week but seems uninspiring to many
Everyone keeps on saying that the recent poll falls haven't benefited Labour, but that seems to be on the basis of a superficial view of the polls and some observation bias.
The chart on wiki shows that Labour's poll score is improving.
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...
Don't be so silly. I'm just observing that there are plenty of racists who have the nous to hint it rather than shout it from the rooftops.
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.
Yeah when I reread what I wrote I understood why you thought I meant that. What I meant was that right now millenials' low property ownership rates were contributing to them leaning left politically, but that as they got older that would change (logically speaking, when the baby boomers are dead someone else will be owning the housing). Gen x have done OK property wise, certainly compared to millenials.
Interesting idea.
Reminds me of how the peace and love hippies of the 60s became the naval gazers of the 70s and then the selfish yuppies of the 80s.
And are now the Tory base!
Very much so. The TV adaptation of The History man was good at making that point.
Sadly the issue here is that Syria, Russia and Belarus don't care - they want rid of the people.
Which leaves the problem as one the EU has a very awkward decision to make because as you say these people will otherwise die but the EU can't allow them into the EU as they aren't refugees more economic migrants.
I'm a millenial, just (40). Life's generally (ceteris paribus and all that) easier for those 5 years older than myself compared to those 5 years younger I think.
Yes I think that is fair. I think of people my age as like those clinging to the helicopters in the retreat from Saigon. We just made it out of the neoliberal precariat hell-scape that our elders have bequeathed the younger generation.
When the UK did present a serious challenge to the Irish interpretation of the Belfast Agreement in its August 2017 position paper the EU wilfully ignored the UK because it was wholly inconvenient for it to listen; the EU then redefined the Belfast Agreement in its guiding principles in order to eliminate the complex realities that would have upset its planned solution for the border. The evidence base put forward to justify the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s alignment with the EU was hugely exaggerated and never tested or assessed against the far deeper integration of Northern Ireland in the UK. This failure to accept the balance of the Belfast Agreement and the complex realities of Northern Ireland is at the heart of the current trouble with the protocol, and the fault for that lies in part in Dublin, even if the responsibility must ultimately lie in the negotiating ‘success’ of Brussels and the UK’s failure to successfully challenge already existing assumptions......
In 2017 it was the UK that was unable to see that the solution had to be political and that it needed to make the necessary concessions through a solution of its own; now it appears to be the EU that cannot see the political flaw at the heart of the Protocol
Sadly the issue here is that Syria, Russia and Belarus don't care - they want rid of the people.
Which leaves the problem as one the EU has a very awkward decision to make because as you say these people will otherwise die but the EU can't allow them into the EU as they aren't refugees more economic migrants.
One side or the other will have to back down. They can't just let them die. I hope
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...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
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.
You cannot elide sex and gender into one because (a) the whole basis of gender ideology is that the two are different; (b) you cannot change sex in reality; (c) sex is a physical reality.
You cannot buck reality no matter what fancy words you use.
They authors of that poster and the Pride campaign deliberately ignored or downplayed women. It is quite simply old-fashioned sexism, despite all the progressive coating some might place around 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.
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...
The same as those racist coppers who look at black people and say "he's a criminal" then fit them up for crimes they didn't commit.
robert shrimsley @robertshrimsley · 7h Every Tory MP reading about their second job in todays press knows they have Boris Johnson's Paterson plan, to thank for the renewed scrutiny.
This article was written today? UK cases are dropping
“ The United Kingdom has also been battling a stubborn streak of new infections, months after "Freedom Day" celebrations at the end of July marked the removal of almost all Covid-19 restrictions. Though unlike its European neighbors, the UK has no plans to reinstate restrictions any time soon, including mandatory mask wearing.”
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...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
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...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
Same time next week?
Damn unsolicited diagnoses! He’ll be devising a scoring system to rank people next
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.
Tomorrow likely to be less than 30k for the UK total, though.
The downwards spike continues.
I wonder whether CNN's Amanpour, the NYT and everyone else interesting in portraying the UK as "plague island" (h/t Rochdale) are reporting on this downward fall?
Zero-intervention herd immunity with schools open achieved before the winter. Great going. 👍
Get your booster if eligible, dump the mask, and just get back on with life.
PS I know that trains are the normal way to acknowledge case numbers, but I'd love it if next week the case numbers could match Jean Valjean's prison number.
the number of people in hospital means they classified it again as a "societal risk" illness and we had the gang back together for a classic covid press conference yesterday at 8. We will get the coronapas back so we need to show it to go to certain places like cinemas restaurants etc. What happened is we got rid of all,and I mean ALL restrictions - we have been living as normal for months - lots of kids getting infected - it's just like the UK and I expect the path will be similar - booster jabs for vulnerable and then after 6 months and 2 weeks.
I expect they'll bring that down and reintroduce masks on public transport in certain locations soon. We missed a third wave so getting now - Delta took a long time to arrive.
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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
Are you sure we're not the same person? I've never seen us in the same room.
Waning immunity plus a large reservoir of never-infected people
Plus winter
3rd jab shows amazing efficacy against infection compared to the 2 dose course. Cases could probably be brought right down here if it was offered to everyone after 6 months tbh. Gov'ts definitely missing a bit of low hanging fruit in the under 50s.
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you 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.
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
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
That is exactly what some of the nuttier trans loons are indeed arguing.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
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.
You cannot elide sex and gender into one because (a) the whole basis of gender ideology is that the two are different; (b) you cannot change sex in reality; (c) sex is a physical reality.
You cannot buck reality no matter what fancy words you use.
They authors of that poster and the Pride campaign deliberately ignored or downplayed women. It is quite simply old-fashioned sexism, despite all the progressive coating some might place around it.
They evidently include people you don't recognise as women as women and want no one to discriminate against women. So that would be them not wanting people to discriminate against you or against a pre-op transsexual.
You don't think the pre-op transsexual should be in the category of women and that is a whole different ball game*.
*best incidental pun of the day, yes, I appreciate.
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.
COP26 is only half way through.
The main announcements were last week - on net zero target dates for the big countries, and the phasing out of coal. This week is all about the agreed text for binding legal mechanisms to enforce the commitments, and the closing statements, which will doubtless restate the need to limit warming to 1.5C but I am not very hopeful on either the binding legal mechanisms or anything looking like a clearly marked path to this. I hope to be wrong. But the world media has already moved on.
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.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
D'oh! TimT even had the grace to reply to my suggestion he might change his (in fact, your) views without pointing out my error.
But, really, you can't expect us millenials to have an attention span beyond the third letter of any word
The recent poll falls have not benefitted Labour with the Greens and REFUK gaining votes which does not auger well for Starmer who has had a very good week but seems uninspiring to many
Everyone keeps on saying that the recent poll falls haven't benefited Labour, but that seems to be on the basis of a superficial view of the polls and some observation bias.
The chart on wiki shows that Labour's poll score is improving.
Labour's polling is improving. And Boris has blundered into an issue that gives Labour a chance. So maybe. But I still think Labour are too far behind.
I would worry that the phenomenon of swingback seems to be pretty near universal for what seems like good reasons. Oppositions don't have to do anything, they have to oppose. They should be able to look really attractive to voters, as they can give away free owls, peacocks and unicorns without cost.
Until the election manifesto, that is, when they have to explain how to fund the free owls, peacocks and unicorns. And that inevitably means losing some voters.
Now, maybe this time, it's different .... but usually those are the words of unrealistic optimists.
David Paton @cricketwyvern · 3h Latest update for Sweden: • Positive tests dropping over the past week (in contrast to nearly all other Northern European countries outside of the UK). • New ICUs averaging 2 per day. • Deaths averaging just over 3 per day (as of 2 weeks ago to allow for late backdating).
David Paton @cricketwyvern · 3h Latest update for Sweden: • Positive tests dropping over the past week (in contrast to nearly all other Northern European countries outside of the UK). • New ICUs averaging 2 per day. • Deaths averaging just over 3 per day (as of 2 weeks ago to allow for late backdating).
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
I'd say with the 'older man chasing much younger woman' scenario there's been something of a shift in sentiment from 'good for him, randy old goat' and 'it's the way of the world innit' to 'urgh, sleazy'. On which topic I'm watching the Clinton/Lewinsky drama atm. Oh dear oh dear. Truly grisly behaviour from Bill. Maybe the smartest, most charismatic politician there has ever been but I think I'd have voted Guilty in his Impeachment. Absolute disgrace how he behaved.
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
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
That is exactly what some of the nuttier trans loons are indeed arguing.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
The Virginia school loo/trans/rape story was quite eye opening
It ended up with certified feminists in the New York Times belittling two nasty rapes, vaguely suggesting they never really happened, what does it matter anyway, move along
That's where this is at. "Feminists" trying to minimise rape, because it contradicts Woke
The recent poll falls have not benefitted Labour with the Greens and REFUK gaining votes which does not auger well for Starmer who has had a very good week but seems uninspiring to many
Everyone keeps on saying that the recent poll falls haven't benefited Labour, but that seems to be on the basis of a superficial view of the polls and some observation bias.
The chart on wiki shows that Labour's poll score is improving.
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
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
That is exactly what some of the nuttier trans loons are indeed arguing.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
The Virginia school loo/trans/rape story was quite eye opening
Yeah, except the guy would did the sexual assault wasn't trans.
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.
You cannot elide sex and gender into one because (a) the whole basis of gender ideology is that the two are different; (b) you cannot change sex in reality; (c) sex is a physical reality.
You cannot buck reality no matter what fancy words you use.
They authors of that poster and the Pride campaign deliberately ignored or downplayed women. It is quite simply old-fashioned sexism, despite all the progressive coating some might place around it.
They evidently include people you don't recognise as women as women and want no one to discriminate against women. So that would be them not wanting people to discriminate against you or against a pre-op transsexual.
You don't think the pre-op transsexual should be in the category of women and that is a whole different ball game*.
*best incidental pun of the day, yes, I appreciate.
I'll give you the pun. But disagree with the rest. That poster tells me that hate towards me on the basis of my sex is not something that London stands against.
All they had to do was include the word sex, which is not as the gender ideologists keep telling us the same as gender. But they didn't.
Those Pride posters are overwhelmingly of gay men. Not gay women.
Women are viewed by our oh-so-progressive Mayor as an afterthought. This is not just my view but of my Daughter in her 20's.
And to answer @Philip_Thompson, yes, I do think that Liz Truss has done a reasonable job on this issue. Labour and the Lib Dems have taken leave of their senses on this issue, I'm afraid.
Comments
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
If he is, then I would tend to agree.
It plays into the right wingers' hands and is completely counter-productive. People just want to have fun. It's particularly annoying in the climate change context because it reinforces the silly stereotype that the problem is people having fun and enjoying life, and we all need to become miserable hermits in order to fix the climate. And by extension that it is somehow in the hands of the consumer. No we don't: we need to treat global warming as a problem of industrial waste disposal, as it truly is, and put in place proper costs and restrictions on the emission of CO2, NO2 and Methane.
I like to think like you that Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy.
I can't quite believe the luck. I mean, obvs I knew Boris Johnson was a schmuck. I just didn't realise he'd drop the veil to the nation quite so suddenly.
'Instead, we found the PM skulking in a radiology department, trying to change the subject to Covid. That in itself tells you quite how bad things are. Changing the subject to talk about something he’s handled as badly as Covid has the ring of “Can we talk instead about how I can’t live on £160,000 and two free houses?”, or “Can we talk instead about how my wife’s five years older than my daughter?” I suppose you have to concede the quality of the white goods he’s hiding in has improved. He’s graduated from a fridge to a CT scan machine.'
Safety bill is aimed at reining in social media but its effects will be felt much more widely and threaten free speech
Hugo Rifkind" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/online-policing-doesnt-stop-at-tech-giants-gshsg3d73
Edit: not what I think, but the general public, which is what counts.
But evidence of some nut jobs is insufficient to prove widespread or significant nutjobbery.
In my broad experience, Sadiq is not hated (let alone reviled as a Muslim), he’s just considered a total non-entity.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
Reminds me of how the peace and love hippies of the 60s became the naval gazers of the 70s and then the selfish yuppies of the 80s.
It's the equivalent of someone walking into an art gallery, looking at an early Matisse and saying: "that's shit". Well of course the translation is: "oh look a piece of art whose author I appreciate takes his place in the pantheon of great artists but I don't much care for it."
Life's too short.
PT leaves no one in any doubt about his views and hence it is up to us to argue back. You know that he will be relentlessly thorough in the portrayal of his position. I agree with almost nothing he says but he makes me refine and think about my own argument constantly.
"It's a personal matter, and you shouldn't feel pressurized to change, but it's worth you considering the extent to which societal prejudices might have shaped your feelings on this."
What's the massive problem?
Our formative experiences stretch roughly from Michael Jackson’s “Thriller”, through to “The Simpsons”, to dial-up Internet, 9/11 and the Iraq War.
No 10 has announced there will be a new vote next week to rescind the Paterson motion and allow the House to approve the Standards Commissioner's verdict on him
On Friday we have the conclusion of COP26 which looks like it will not reach the targets expected and because of the Commons furore very few must have realised Obama was there yesterday and gave a speech
The A16 is coming down the track in the next few weeks, and two pre Christmas by elections as well
The recent poll falls have not benefitted Labour with the Greens and REFUK gaining votes which does not auger well for Starmer who has had a very good week but seems uninspiring to many
However, this has changed the narrative and GE24 is very much in play from increased Conservative majority to even a Labour one
It's why the discussions on this are a dialogue of the deaf. People are coming at it from a completely different set of assumptions and so can't agree on how to respond.
...government whips have (officially or not) begun actively briefing against No10. Sources close to Spencer emphatically deny he sanctioned this. Govt source: “It was a Government decison. It’s a team game, we stand or fall together”. More on @TimesRadio at 4pm.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1458098682092527618
An article I saw recently at the Daily Mirror, on the large number of families about to be forced into destitution and homelessness by the UC cut, and extensively backed up and comprehensively sourced with quotes from the Resolution Foundation, was almost full to the brim with replies to the effect that these were all lazy fraudsters and shirkers, and it was their fault. That is a historically Labour-supporting newspaper, not the Daily Mail. This sort of extreme and Victorian, workhouse authoritarianism is no less widespread, dangerous and pervasive now than some recent trends on the left.
I just talk to fellow Londoners and black cab drivers about him.
He has had a hostile central government, but that’s no excuse for his overwhelming lack of ambition or action. Look at Paris for what can be achieved with a bit of vision.
Anyway, enough of him; he is too boring to merit longer discussion.
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
And I don't even like avocados (they're for my millenial partner).
Problem with that is that it needs to be cross-party and it's just burnt a huge amount of goodwill meaning that the Opposition parties are very much in the driving seat.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1458100475291750407
https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1458092973216964622
And that is absurd. No one can help their sexuality, that is the whole point of gay liberation. Now it is being turned on its head by the Woke.
Incidentally my lady friend's Woke Weirdness was briskly underlined when she then admitted (after denouncing my sexual preferences) that after her menopause she essentially no longer had a libido anyway, anymore, so she was denouncing me for not desiring sex.... with someone who doesn't want sex
The public will not appreciate anything other than cooperation
https://twitter.com/MON_GOV_PL/status/1458077253707911175?s=20
Meanwhile, the weather is deteriorating, and the first winter cold is expected shortly. Below freezing all day. Many could die
https://twitter.com/MeteoprognozaPL/status/1458054257484173319?s=20
There are far more substantive issues to address. It wouldn't surprise me if the ECJ being the hill they're prepared to die on, means that the EU gives ground on every other issue while keeping a tokenistic role for the ECJ. Thus winning that battle but losing the war.
A bit like Barnier getting completely obsessed over fish at the end of the TCA negotiations and Frost making out like a bandit on all the important issues like governance, divergence etc
Life's generally (ceteris paribus and all that) easier for those 5 years older than myself compared to those 5 years younger I think.
The chart on wiki shows that Labour's poll score is improving.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#/media/File:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_after_2019_(LOESS).svg
Which leaves the problem as one the EU has a very awkward decision to make because as you say these people will otherwise die but the EU can't allow them into the EU as they aren't refugees more economic migrants.
England 32k -> 25k week on week.
Still falling, but the fall isn't accelerating.
Tomorrow likely to be <30k for the UK total, though.
The evidence base put forward to justify the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s alignment with the EU was hugely exaggerated and never tested or assessed against the far deeper integration of Northern Ireland in the UK. This failure to accept the balance of the Belfast Agreement and the complex realities of Northern Ireland is at the heart of the current trouble with the protocol, and the fault for that lies in part in Dublin, even if the responsibility must ultimately lie in the negotiating ‘success’ of Brussels and the UK’s failure to successfully challenge already existing assumptions......
In 2017 it was the UK that was unable to see that the solution had to be political and that it needed to make the necessary concessions through a solution of its own; now it appears to be the EU that cannot see the political flaw at the heart of the Protocol
https://legacysite1.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Northern-Ireland-Protocol.pdf
Same time next week?
Good
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
You cannot buck reality no matter what fancy words you use.
They authors of that poster and the Pride campaign deliberately ignored or downplayed women. It is quite simply old-fashioned sexism, despite all the progressive coating some might place around it.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/09/europe/denmark-restrictions-europe-covid-intl/index.html
Plus winter
robert shrimsley
@robertshrimsley
·
7h
Every Tory MP reading about their second job in todays press knows they have Boris Johnson's Paterson plan, to thank for the renewed scrutiny.
“ The United Kingdom has also been battling a stubborn streak of new infections, months after "Freedom Day" celebrations at the end of July marked the removal of almost all Covid-19 restrictions.
Though unlike its European neighbors, the UK has no plans to reinstate restrictions any time soon, including mandatory mask wearing.”
I wonder whether CNN's Amanpour, the NYT and everyone else interesting in portraying the UK as "plague island" (h/t Rochdale) are reporting on this downward fall?
Zero-intervention herd immunity with schools open achieved before the winter. Great going. 👍
Get your booster if eligible, dump the mask, and just get back on with life.
PS I know that trains are the normal way to acknowledge case numbers, but I'd love it if next week the case numbers could match Jean Valjean's prison number.
Bagpipes!
http://www.elrdiesel.info/fleetphotos/33117-broadfield-2004-07-07-as1.jpg
http://www.elrdiesel.info/fleet-33117.php
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-08-22..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=new_cases_smoothed_per_million&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=New+per+day&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=GBR~DNK
I expect they'll bring that down and reintroduce masks on public transport in certain locations soon. We missed a third wave so getting now - Delta took a long time to arrive.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
You don't think the pre-op transsexual should be in the category of women and that is a whole different ball game*.
*best incidental pun of the day, yes, I appreciate.
But, really, you can't expect us millenials to have an attention span beyond the third letter of any word
I would worry that the phenomenon of swingback seems to be pretty near universal for what seems like good reasons. Oppositions don't have to do anything, they have to oppose. They should be able to look really attractive to voters, as they can give away free owls, peacocks and unicorns without cost.
Until the election manifesto, that is, when they have to explain how to fund the free owls, peacocks and unicorns. And that inevitably means losing some voters.
Now, maybe this time, it's different .... but usually those are the words of unrealistic optimists.
David Paton
@cricketwyvern
·
3h
Latest update for Sweden:
• Positive tests dropping over the past week (in contrast to nearly all other Northern European countries outside of the UK).
• New ICUs averaging 2 per day.
• Deaths averaging just over 3 per day (as of 2 weeks ago to allow for late backdating).
Flatlander has taken today's UK figure but Yesterday's England figure.
(For some reason PB wouldn't let me reply to Flatlander's post directly).
The UK figures are 33,117 down from 33,865.
It ended up with certified feminists in the New York Times belittling two nasty rapes, vaguely suggesting they never really happened, what does it matter anyway, move along
That's where this is at. "Feminists" trying to minimise rape, because it contradicts Woke
All they had to do was include the word sex, which is not as the gender ideologists keep telling us the same as gender. But they didn't.
Those Pride posters are overwhelmingly of gay men. Not gay women.
Women are viewed by our oh-so-progressive Mayor as an afterthought. This is not just my view but of my Daughter in her 20's.
And to answer @Philip_Thompson, yes, I do think that Liz Truss has done a reasonable job on this issue. Labour and the Lib Dems have taken leave of their senses on this issue, I'm afraid.