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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
Not by law they aren't, TFL require them as part of their terms of carriage but ultimately they can't legally force anyone to wear a mask.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
As for the link I sent before... I don't know what to say. There's plenty of stuff in there including a paper exploring the methodology and links to the data in a github repo. I'm sorry it's not in a more digestible format for you but sometimes it's worth digging a little deeper, as I've just been reminded by checking the face coverings score.
Hmm it was my understanding that on Public Transport it was required. Not a legal requirement but one short of that - I think the announcements say something like "may be refused passage".
And as for the doc - give me time I thought it might be something I could speed skim. Which it is not.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
As for the link I sent before... I don't know what to say. There's plenty of stuff in there including a paper exploring the methodology and links to the data in a github repo. I'm sorry it's not in a more digestible format for you but sometimes it's worth digging a little deeper, as I've just been reminded by checking the face coverings score.
However I wonder what is the legal basis for this. It's notable they don't mention fines, so maybe this is a bit of a charade, and they actually don't have the power to enforce this?
The best characterisation of mask policy in England is "1 - Recommended"
No power to enforce, I saw it in action, someone complained to an employee about people not wearing masks and threatened to call the BTP (at Old Street, I actually hung back to see what would happen!) the employee said that the BTP would do nothing so don't bother wasting anyone's time.
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
We've done this one before on PB. Guess this applies to most things! Reprise of my view - sexuality is 100% private domain. You just can't legislate for all of that. It's a person's pure prerogative. BUT - does this mean that (eg) if I cannot stomach the notion of physical intimacy with somebody of a different skin colour that I shouldn't be asking myself why I think that is? I don't think it does. Hardly a bizarrio superwoke position, that, is it? It's just recognizing nuance and introducing perspective in lieu of the crazy extrapolation of you and Nabavi and some of the other reactionary cranks on here.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
As for the link I sent before... I don't know what to say. There's plenty of stuff in there including a paper exploring the methodology and links to the data in a github repo. I'm sorry it's not in a more digestible format for you but sometimes it's worth digging a little deeper, as I've just been reminded by checking the face coverings score.
Hmm it was my understanding that on Public Transport it was required. Not a legal requirement but one short of that - I think the announcements say something like "may be refused passage".
And as for the doc - give me time I thought it might be something I could speed skim. Which it is not.
Good work with that link from tfl. I wonder then if the England score is driven entirely by Sadiq Khan... hahaha, I think a few blood vessels will be popping on here if so.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
Not by law they aren't, TFL require them as part of their terms of carriage but ultimately they can't legally force anyone to wear a mask.
Yep as per the link I posted. That is some turbo nudging right there. I particularly (didn't) like this bit, referring to the exemption card you can get:
"If you are exempt from wearing a face covering, you can download and print the card below and carry it with you. You may want to print it and wear it on a lanyard or attach it to your clothing. You can show it if you are asked why you are not wearing a face covering. We will also recognise similar cards that may have been issued by other transport operators. You can also display it on your phone."
How about fuck off.
And it then gives a very long list of exemption reasons.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
As for the link I sent before... I don't know what to say. There's plenty of stuff in there including a paper exploring the methodology and links to the data in a github repo. I'm sorry it's not in a more digestible format for you but sometimes it's worth digging a little deeper, as I've just been reminded by checking the face coverings score.
Hmm it was my understanding that on Public Transport it was required. Not a legal requirement but one short of that - I think the announcements say something like "may be refused passage".
And as for the doc - give me time I thought it might be something I could speed skim. Which it is not.
Yeah that's the terms of carriage but there's no legal foundation so it's merely a recommendation that people can (and obviously do) ignore. It's like companies insisting on a terms of service or end user licence agreement. No one has ever, ever gone to jail for hacking their iPhone or PS4 or Xbox.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
However I wonder what is the legal basis for this. It's notable they don't mention fines, so maybe this is a bit of a charade, and they actually don't have the power to enforce this?
The best characterisation of mask policy in England is "1 - Recommended"
1 to 2 on the definition given. They are 'required' in some places (TFL, hospitals, care homes, and in Scotland on public transport), even if it's not a legally-enforceable requirement.
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
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
Doing those kind of tests then broadcasting the results is a kind of needy vanity that I’d like to avoid. Not that I always do I suppose
No clue why you're seeing it this way. 'Class' comes up a lot on here and I designed something neat to clarify and assist the discussions. Nothing untoward about it at all. As you'd know if you hadn't refused to co-operate.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
That is a funny letter. Politely worded rebukes can be hilarious, its why some legal judgements can be pretty entertaining.
My most sarcastic response to a complaint from a random member of the public (not even a client or customer) was along the lines of
1) You have no standing
and
2) There's so much wrong with your original 'complaint' that I don't know where to even begin but do not consider this response to be exhaustive, I shall only address the major points as a complete reply will lead to the complete deforestation of the Amazon rainforest due to the paper required to address every incomplete point you have raised.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Deflection from a story is a sad attempt to mask a genuine rebuke to Labour unless you are saying it is made up
Yes, I clicked your link and read the Guido story. I have to say, people will still be talking about it when the pyramids are dust. Forget the Boris sleaze stuff, THIS is the big news story. And if anyone accuses YOU of desperately trying to deflect something, ANYTHING onto Labour, they'll have ME to answer to.
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
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
Doing those kind of tests then broadcasting the results is a kind of needy vanity that I’d like to avoid. Not that I always do I suppose
No clue why you're seeing it this way. 'Class' comes up a lot on here and I designed something neat to clarify and assist the discussions. Nothing untoward about it at all. As you'd know if you hadn't refused to co-operate.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
However I wonder what is the legal basis for this. It's notable they don't mention fines, so maybe this is a bit of a charade, and they actually don't have the power to enforce this?
The best characterisation of mask policy in England is "1 - Recommended"
1 to 2 on the definition given. They are 'required' in some places (TFL, hospitals, care homes, and in Scotland on public transport), even if it's not a legally-enforceable requirement.
Legally it's only the last three, though I'm not sure about Scotland (there be dragons, or is that Wales?).
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
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
I must have missed it or forgotten it - what was the class indicator test?
But you did it! You scored 14 if I recall. Which was about what you expected.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Deflection from a story is a sad attempt to mask a genuine rebuke to Labour unless you are saying it is made up
Yes, I clicked your link and read the Guido story. I have to say, people will still be talking about it when the pyramids are dust. Forget the Boris sleaze stuff, THIS is the big news story. And if anyone accuses YOU of desperately trying to deflect something, ANYTHING onto Labour, they'll have ME to answer to.
I have been as angry in my attacks on Boris as anyone, but it is also the case labour have been rebuked in this matter
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
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
I must have missed it or forgotten it - what was the class indicator test?
But you did it! You scored 14 if I recall. Which was about what you expected.
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
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
I must have missed it or forgotten it - what was the class indicator test?
But you did it! You scored 14 if I recall. Which was about what you expected.
Then I apologise for my forgetfulness.
Any class test that doesn't have me down as working class is deeply flawed.
However I wonder what is the legal basis for this. It's notable they don't mention fines, so maybe this is a bit of a charade, and they actually don't have the power to enforce this?
The best characterisation of mask policy in England is "1 - Recommended"
1 to 2 on the definition given. They are 'required' in some places (TFL, hospitals, care homes, and in Scotland on public transport), even if it's not a legally-enforceable requirement.
Legally it's only the last three, though I'm not sure about Scotland (there be dragons, or is that Wales?).
The definition doesn't specify that it's a legal requirement, so the pedant in me says it's 1 to 2, arguably more 2 than 1. (This is PB, after all. If we can't be pedantic here, where can we be pedantic?)
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Deflection from a story is a sad attempt to mask a genuine rebuke to Labour unless you are saying it is made up
Surely Big_G the deflection was yours:
You flagged up 'a rebuke to Labour's complaints about Patel' in response to their 'request for an investigation over Cox'. How have Labour 'over-played their hand' in requesting that investigation?
However I wonder what is the legal basis for this. It's notable they don't mention fines, so maybe this is a bit of a charade, and they actually don't have the power to enforce this?
The best characterisation of mask policy in England is "1 - Recommended"
1 to 2 on the definition given. They are 'required' in some places (TFL, hospitals, care homes, and in Scotland on public transport), even if it's not a legally-enforceable requirement.
Legally it's only the last three, though I'm not sure about Scotland (there be dragons, or is that Wales?).
The definition doesn't specify that it's a legal requirement, so the pedant in me says it's 1 to 2, arguably more 2 than 1. (This is PB, after all. If we can't be pedantic here, where can we be pedantic?)
Is an unenforceable requirement actually a requirement or just a gentle reminder?
However I wonder what is the legal basis for this. It's notable they don't mention fines, so maybe this is a bit of a charade, and they actually don't have the power to enforce this?
The best characterisation of mask policy in England is "1 - Recommended"
1 to 2 on the definition given. They are 'required' in some places (TFL, hospitals, care homes, and in Scotland on public transport), even if it's not a legally-enforceable requirement.
Legally it's only the last three, though I'm not sure about Scotland (there be dragons, or is that Wales?).
The definition doesn't specify that it's a legal requirement, so the pedant in me says it's 1 to 2, arguably more 2 than 1. (This is PB, after all. If we can't be pedantic here, where can we be pedantic?)
Is an unenforceable requirement actually a requirement or just a gentle reminder?
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.
He was wearing a skirt
And? He apparently likes wearing skirts.
That doesn't make him trans. That doesn't even make him gender fluid.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
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
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
I must have missed it or forgotten it - what was the class indicator test?
But you did it! You scored 14 if I recall. Which was about what you expected.
Then I apologise for my forgetfulness.
Any class test that doesn't have me down as working class is deeply flawed.
And any that does is just plain wrong.
Deeply flawed is as good as it gets when it comes to class tests.
Yorkshire announce head coach Andrew Gale suspended "pending a disciplinary hearing" re past tweet and also state director of cricket Martyn Moxon is currently absent from work due to stress related illness. Confirmation the report into racism shared with DCMS
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Deflection from a story is a sad attempt to mask a genuine rebuke to Labour unless you are saying it is made up
Surely Big_G the deflection was yours:
You flagged up 'a rebuke to Labour's complaints about Patel' in response to their 'request for an investigation over Cox'. How have Labour 'over-played their hand' in requesting that investigation?
Labour are in danger of overplaying their hand over Cox, as he hasn't done anything wrong and while the sums are much greater Starmer claimed second job fees of £113,975 since becoming an MP in 2015
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
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.
He was wearing a skirt
And? He apparently likes wearing skirts.
That doesn't make him trans. That doesn't even make him gender fluid.
Except, he is genderfluid?
"A sexual assault committed by a 'gender fluid' teen who was then transferred to another high school is traumatizing Loudoun County, Virginia."
He wears a skirt, he's bisexual, he is genderfluid, he uses the female toilets, does that make you trans? It certainly makes you transvestite, he is knowingly wearing female clothing; but the modern terminology of the trans issue is so confusing I sincerely admit I do not know if I am using exactly the right words
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.
He was wearing a skirt
And? He apparently likes wearing skirts.
That doesn't make him trans. That doesn't even make him gender fluid.
Well, of course he was neither trans nor gender fluid, he forcibly buggered a girl. And he might have done it anyway, but it was greatly facilitated by pro trans wankerdom.
Here's the heart of the NYT's case that it was nothing to do with trans rights
"The boy was indeed wearing a skirt, but that skirt didn’t authorize him to use the girls’ bathroom. As Amanda Terkel reported in HuffPost, the school district’s trans-inclusive bathroom policies were approved only in August, more than two months after the assault."
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Deflection from a story is a sad attempt to mask a genuine rebuke to Labour unless you are saying it is made up
Surely Big_G the deflection was yours:
You flagged up 'a rebuke to Labour's complaints about Patel' in response to their 'request for an investigation over Cox'. How have Labour 'over-played their hand' in requesting that investigation?
Labour are in danger of overplaying their hand over Cox, as he hasn't done anything wrong and while the sums are much greater Starmer claimed second job fees of £113,975 since becoming an MP in 2015
Nobody is pretending that Labour are purer than pure on this but change has gotta happen, and it won't happen unless HMG are put under pressure.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
That is a funny letter. Politely worded rebukes can be hilarious, its why some legal judgements can be pretty entertaining.
My most sarcastic response to a complaint from a random member of the public (not even a client or customer) was along the lines of
1) You have no standing
and
2) There's so much wrong with your original 'complaint' that I don't know where to even begin but do not consider this response to be exhaustive, I shall only address the major points as a complete reply will lead to the complete deforestation of the Amazon rainforest due to the paper required to address every incomplete point you have raised.
A man in your exalted position wrote the return letter yourself? That must have been quite the complaint.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Deflection from a story is a sad attempt to mask a genuine rebuke to Labour unless you are saying it is made up
Surely Big_G the deflection was yours:
You flagged up 'a rebuke to Labour's complaints about Patel' in response to their 'request for an investigation over Cox'. How have Labour 'over-played their hand' in requesting that investigation?
Labour are in danger of overplaying their hand over Cox, as he hasn't done anything wrong and while the sums are much greater Starmer claimed second job fees of £113,975 since becoming an MP in 2015
Sir Keir and Sir Geoffrey were two fine men They went to court when the clock struck ten
ETA and look at the sacrifice Cox made by being Attorney General and hence not practising for 2 years.
I imagine he'll be happy to stand down at next GE anyway. he's had his 15 minutes of fame and got his K. He seems an ill-chosen target all round.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Deflection from a story is a sad attempt to mask a genuine rebuke to Labour unless you are saying it is made up
Surely Big_G the deflection was yours:
You flagged up 'a rebuke to Labour's complaints about Patel' in response to their 'request for an investigation over Cox'. How have Labour 'over-played their hand' in requesting that investigation?
Labour are in danger of overplaying their hand over Cox, as he hasn't done anything wrong and while the sums are much greater Starmer claimed second job fees of £113,975 since becoming an MP in 2015
Nobody is pretending that Labour are purer than pure on this but change has gotta happen, and it won't happen unless HMG are put under pressure.
We agree 100% on that, and they have put forward the request made by Chris Bryant (an exceptional mp on this) to vote on Paterson next week
It needs cool heads to come together to address the issues on a non party political bases as soon as possible
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Deflection from a story is a sad attempt to mask a genuine rebuke to Labour unless you are saying it is made up
Surely Big_G the deflection was yours:
You flagged up 'a rebuke to Labour's complaints about Patel' in response to their 'request for an investigation over Cox'. How have Labour 'over-played their hand' in requesting that investigation?
Labour are in danger of overplaying their hand over Cox, as he hasn't done anything wrong and while the sums are much greater Starmer claimed second job fees of £113,975 since becoming an MP in 2015
Nobody is pretending that Labour are purer than pure on this but change has gotta happen, and it won't happen unless HMG are put under pressure.
Who do you think said this last week?
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
That is a funny letter. Politely worded rebukes can be hilarious, its why some legal judgements can be pretty entertaining.
My most sarcastic response to a complaint from a random member of the public (not even a client or customer) was along the lines of
1) You have no standing
and
2) There's so much wrong with your original 'complaint' that I don't know where to even begin but do not consider this response to be exhaustive, I shall only address the major points as a complete reply will lead to the complete deforestation of the Amazon rainforest due to the paper required to address every incomplete point you have raised.
A man in your exalted position wrote the return letter yourself? That must have been quite the complaint.
They threatened to go to the FCA, police, and SECC, it became my problem.
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.
He was wearing a skirt
And? He apparently likes wearing skirts.
That doesn't make him trans. That doesn't even make him gender fluid.
Except, he is genderfluid?
"A sexual assault committed by a 'gender fluid' teen who was then transferred to another high school is traumatizing Loudoun County, Virginia."
He wears a skirt, he's bisexual, he is genderfluid, he uses the female toilets, does that make you trans? It certainly makes you transvestite, he is knowingly wearing female clothing; but the modern terminology of the trans issue is so confusing I sincerely admit I do not know if I am using exactly the right words
The only person who has called him gender fluid is the first victim's father. Its why it keeps appearing in quotes in news stories.
Ay the time of the first assault, even if he was trans and was indentfying as a female, he wasn't allowed in the girls toilets anyways. So trying to make this about trans women's access to female toilets is a massive non starter.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Deflection from a story is a sad attempt to mask a genuine rebuke to Labour unless you are saying it is made up
Do you think this story will dominate the front pages and news cycle like the Paterson story did?
Why wouid anyone listen to James O'brien.ever,?
Because he is a fluent and highly intelligent speaker. His observation that Johnson was born entitled, but his cabinet have had entitlement thrust upon them by Brexit, is spot on.
The PM needs to sort this stuff out as this will not end well. Some of us did predict trying to shift the blame to the Chief Whip/Whips over the Paterson vote was a courageous move by the PM
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.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
That is a funny letter. Politely worded rebukes can be hilarious, its why some legal judgements can be pretty entertaining.
My most sarcastic response to a complaint from a random member of the public (not even a client or customer) was along the lines of
1) You have no standing
and
2) There's so much wrong with your original 'complaint' that I don't know where to even begin but do not consider this response to be exhaustive, I shall only address the major points as a complete reply will lead to the complete deforestation of the Amazon rainforest due to the paper required to address every incomplete point you have raised.
I'm disappointed there was no reference to Arkell v Pressdram.
Pfizer CEO says people who spread misinformation on Covid vaccines are ‘criminals’
He's a French President, prosecution is pretty much mandatory.
Not sure if that's criticism or envy in your post.
Mittterand - His own set of "plumbers" 7 members of the President's anti-terrorist unit were condemned and François Mitterrand was designated as the "inspirator and essentially the controller of the operation." Chirac - Convicted of corruption Sarkozy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_corruption_trial Hollande - Nothing! Macron - ?
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.
He was wearing a skirt
And? He apparently likes wearing skirts.
That doesn't make him trans. That doesn't even make him gender fluid.
Except, he is genderfluid?
"A sexual assault committed by a 'gender fluid' teen who was then transferred to another high school is traumatizing Loudoun County, Virginia."
He wears a skirt, he's bisexual, he is genderfluid, he uses the female toilets, does that make you trans? It certainly makes you transvestite, he is knowingly wearing female clothing; but the modern terminology of the trans issue is so confusing I sincerely admit I do not know if I am using exactly the right words
The only person who has called him gender fluid is the first victim's father. Its why it keeps appearing in quotes in news stories.
Ay the time of the first assault, even if he was trans and was indentfying as a female, he wasn't allowed in the girls toilets anyways. So trying to make this about trans women's access to female toilets is a massive non starter.
I believe the victim has also said the attacker is "genderfluid". We have had no evidence at all from the attacker theyselfs, so we just dunno for sure, but the only evidence is that he is genderfluid. Also, the skirt. He likes to wear a skirt. That seems pretty genderfluidy to me
I'm not sure why you are highhorsing this one. It was a bleak, shabby incident which does not reflect well on Loudon County Schools. Or the New York Times
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
That is a funny letter. Politely worded rebukes can be hilarious, its why some legal judgements can be pretty entertaining.
My most sarcastic response to a complaint from a random member of the public (not even a client or customer) was along the lines of
1) You have no standing
and
2) There's so much wrong with your original 'complaint' that I don't know where to even begin but do not consider this response to be exhaustive, I shall only address the major points as a complete reply will lead to the complete deforestation of the Amazon rainforest due to the paper required to address every incomplete point you have raised.
I'm disappointed there was no reference to Arkell v Pressdram.
I was tempted but you know I'm a professional and regulated by some professional standards bodies.
I'm in Aberdeen at the moment and came across someone who went to school with a prominent member of the cabinet. He expressed surprise (and I quote) "that it was so little known he was a back passage storm trooper"
I'm in Aberdeen at the moment and came across someone who went to school with a prominent member of the cabinet. He expressed surprise (and I quote) "that it was so little known he was a back passage storm trooper"
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.
He was wearing a skirt
And? He apparently likes wearing skirts.
That doesn't make him trans. That doesn't even make him gender fluid.
Except, he is genderfluid?
"A sexual assault committed by a 'gender fluid' teen who was then transferred to another high school is traumatizing Loudoun County, Virginia."
He wears a skirt, he's bisexual, he is genderfluid, he uses the female toilets, does that make you trans? It certainly makes you transvestite, he is knowingly wearing female clothing; but the modern terminology of the trans issue is so confusing I sincerely admit I do not know if I am using exactly the right words
The only person who has called him gender fluid is the first victim's father. Its why it keeps appearing in quotes in news stories.
Ay the time of the first assault, even if he was trans and was indentfying as a female, he wasn't allowed in the girls toilets anyways. So trying to make this about trans women's access to female toilets is a massive non starter.
Let me quote myself
"Here's the heart of the NYT's case that it was nothing to do with trans rights
"The boy was indeed wearing a skirt, but that skirt didn’t authorize him to use the girls’ bathroom. As Amanda Terkel reported in HuffPost, the school district’s trans-inclusive bathroom policies were approved only in August, more than two months after the assault."
See any weaknesses there?"
I will give you a clue: if a policy is two months away from approval in an organization as bureaucratic as a school, it is virtually in place already.
The opportunity to enter a women's toilet dressed in a skirt is such an open goal for a wide range of male, masculine gender, heterosexual perverts that you can either conceded that the number of them trying to do so is at least, ooh, 50x the number of genuinely trans women wishing to do so, or you have to argue that heterosexual male perversion is a myth concocted by transphobes. Which is it?
I'm in Aberdeen at the moment and came across someone who went to school with a prominent member of the cabinet. He expressed surprise (and I quote) "that it was so little known he was a back passage storm trooper"
You just happened to.meet this person and he decided to tell you this unprompted.. ? Liklihood of this 0%
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
The guidance to wear masks should be dropped.
It's one of the most likely places for infection. It's an easy line to draw too. Until the spring we should wear masks where we can and where it's sensible. It's really not so tough.
The PM needs to sort this stuff out as this will not end well. Some of us did predict trying to shift the blame to the Chief Whip/Whips over the Paterson vote was a courageous move by the PM
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.
As a criticism it made little sense, much as the purported justifications over the whole business did not. There was no way the Chief Whip went off piste on a directive from No.10, or never filtered back concerns.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
The guidance to wear masks should be dropped.
It's one of the most likely places for infection. It's an easy line to draw too. Until the spring we should wear masks where we can and where it's sensible. It's really not so tough.
It really is.
Stopping infection isn't something we should be doing with NPIs. That's last year's policy.
We have PIs now. Its time to live with the fact that infections happen, not try to prevent them.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
The guidance to wear masks should be dropped.
It's one of the most likely places for infection. It's an easy line to draw too. Until the spring we should wear masks where we can and where it's sensible. It's really not so tough.
It's always just another few months, isn't it? At some point we need to just say enough enough. That point should have been June 2021.
I was in someone else's office today. Refreshingly, after my public sector office which still insists on the mask dance, there was a sign on the door saying that mask wearing was a personal choice and requesting that everyone respect everyone else's choice. Not one mask was in evidence.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
The guidance to wear masks should be dropped.
It's one of the most likely places for infection. It's an easy line to draw too. Until the spring we should wear masks where we can and where it's sensible. It's really not so tough.
It's always just another few months, isn't it? At some point we need to just say enough enough. That point should have been June 2021.
I was in someone else's office today. Refreshingly, after my public sector office which still insists on the mask dance, there was a sign on the door saying that mask wearing was a personal choice and requesting that everyone respect everyone else's choice. Not one mask was in evidence.
Nothing at all suggested that I was 'just another few months' in my view.
I'm in Aberdeen at the moment and came across someone who went to school with a prominent member of the cabinet. He expressed surprise (and I quote) "that it was so little known he was a back passage storm trooper"
You just happened to.meet this person and he decided to tell you this unprompted.. ? Liklihood of this 0%
Where are you getting "unprompted" from? Du calme, mon ami, il ne s'agit pas du FLSOJ™.
I'm in Aberdeen at the moment and came across someone who went to school with a prominent member of the cabinet. He expressed surprise (and I quote) "that it was so little known he was a back passage storm trooper"
You just happened to.meet this person and he decided to tell you this unprompted.. ? Liklihood of this 0%
I am staying with a relative in Aberdeen who had some friends over. It's quite common I think you'll find!
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
The guidance to wear masks should be dropped.
It's one of the most likely places for infection. It's an easy line to draw too. Until the spring we should wear masks where we can and where it's sensible. It's really not so tough.
It really is.
Stopping infection isn't something we should be doing with NPIs. That's last year's policy.
We have PIs now. Its time to live with the fact that infections happen, not try to prevent them.
Good god. Work with what I've said rather than what you want to think I've said.
I'm in Aberdeen at the moment and came across someone who went to school with a prominent member of the cabinet. He expressed surprise (and I quote) "that it was so little known he was a back passage storm trooper"
You just happened to.meet this person and he decided to tell you this unprompted.. ? Liklihood of this 0%
I am staying with a relative in Aberdeen who had some friends over. It's quite common I think you'll find!
I'll meet you for a pint in The White Cockade if you want.
I was speaking to a work colleague of mine in Germany today. He was lambasting the Covid situation there. They are going into the Rhine festival season (not heard of this before and no idea what it is) and apparently this will happen almost without restrictions including lots of cheek kissing, sharing of beer glasses etc. Also as there is no new Chancellor in Germany yet he says that no one is really making decisions and therefore there is a complete lack of leadership. He thinks the Covid situation there is going to get substantially worse very, very quickly.
I'm in Aberdeen at the moment and came across someone who went to school with a prominent member of the cabinet. He expressed surprise (and I quote) "that it was so little known he was a back passage storm trooper"
I was just taken by the expression which I haven't heard before. It would be tasteless to name names.
I'm in Aberdeen at the moment and came across someone who went to school with a prominent member of the cabinet. He expressed surprise (and I quote) "that it was so little known he was a back passage storm trooper"
You just happened to.meet this person and he decided to tell you this unprompted.. ? Liklihood of this 0%
I am staying with a relative in Aberdeen who had some friends over. It's quite common I think you'll find!
My mum's whist partner's hamster's chiropodist's golf-caddy's step-dad said that you'll believe anything you hear, Roger.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
The guidance to wear masks should be dropped.
It's one of the most likely places for infection. It's an easy line to draw too. Until the spring we should wear masks where we can and where it's sensible. It's really not so tough.
It's always just another few months, isn't it? At some point we need to just say enough enough. That point should have been June 2021.
I was in someone else's office today. Refreshingly, after my public sector office which still insists on the mask dance, there was a sign on the door saying that mask wearing was a personal choice and requesting that everyone respect everyone else's choice. Not one mask was in evidence.
Nothing at all suggested that I was 'just another few months' in my view.
I was basing my inference on the words 'until the Spring'.
I'm in Aberdeen at the moment and came across someone who went to school with a prominent member of the cabinet. He expressed surprise (and I quote) "that it was so little known he was a back passage storm trooper"
I was just taken by the expression which I haven't heard before. It would be tasteless to name names.
quite so. Could be any of the Aberdonians in the Cabinet.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
The guidance to wear masks should be dropped.
It's one of the most likely places for infection. It's an easy line to draw too. Until the spring we should wear masks where we can and where it's sensible. It's really not so tough.
It's always just another few months, isn't it? At some point we need to just say enough enough. That point should have been June 2021.
I was in someone else's office today. Refreshingly, after my public sector office which still insists on the mask dance, there was a sign on the door saying that mask wearing was a personal choice and requesting that everyone respect everyone else's choice. Not one mask was in evidence.
Nothing at all suggested that I was 'just another few months' in my view.
I was basing my inference on the words 'until the Spring'.
Ah, I see. Just the spring is the best time to go risky. No prediction as to the virus.
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.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
No they're not.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
They should be compulsory on the tube and enforced by the law rather than tfl's ire (no fault of theirs)
Why?
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
Why? - The tube is a special case of ridiculously close contact in an unventilated space.
So what?
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
The guidance to wear masks should be dropped.
It's one of the most likely places for infection. It's an easy line to draw too. Until the spring we should wear masks where we can and where it's sensible. It's really not so tough.
It really is.
Stopping infection isn't something we should be doing with NPIs. That's last year's policy.
We have PIs now. Its time to live with the fact that infections happen, not try to prevent them.
Good god. Work with what I've said rather than what you want to think I've said.
Did you say that they should be mandated by law to prevent infections?
The law shouldn't be seeking to prevent infections in the community. People should be getting vaccinated.
I'm in Aberdeen at the moment and came across someone who went to school with a prominent member of the cabinet. He expressed surprise (and I quote) "that it was so little known he was a back passage storm trooper"
I think his wife now knows hence her scathing attacks on him in her Daily Mail columns.
Comments
And as for the doc - give me time I thought it might be something I could speed skim. Which it is not.
Edit: https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/face-coverings is what I found.
Most PBers would be able to blend right in!
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/osmosis-of-corruption-the-viral-james-obrien-video-that-has-racked-up-over-2-million-views-300298/
(Although to some, London is England)
"If you are exempt from wearing a face covering, you can download and print the card below and carry it with you. You may want to print it and wear it on a lanyard or attach it to your clothing. You can show it if you are asked why you are not wearing a face covering. We will also recognise similar cards that may have been issued by other transport operators. You can also display it on your phone."
How about fuck off.
And it then gives a very long list of exemption reasons.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-floats-idea-eu-paying-belarus-stop-migrant-flows-2021-11-09/
1) You have no standing
and
2) There's so much wrong with your original 'complaint' that I don't know where to even begin but do not consider this response to be exhaustive, I shall only address the major points as a complete reply will lead to the complete deforestation of the Amazon rainforest due to the paper required to address every incomplete point you have raised.
Is that what the test says?
Putin is (and I use this word with the utmost care) scum.
https://twitter.com/Mzhda_112/status/1458125876370059269?s=20
God. WTF does Europe do? It will be minus 3 there tonight (or lower, in the middle of a forest). Minus 7 next Monday
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/776069
I do believe in balance and maybe others should
You flagged up 'a rebuke to Labour's complaints about Patel' in response to their 'request for an investigation over Cox'. How have Labour 'over-played their hand' in requesting that investigation?
That doesn't make him trans. That doesn't even make him gender fluid.
Face masks are not legally required in public transport in England. TFL don't make the law.
I believe they are legally required in care homes and some other healthcare settings though.
Deeply flawed is as good as it gets when it comes to class tests.
Vlad "Mad Dog" - "So, if you were to pay my friend a suitable vig, nothing unreasonable, then the problems with immigrants could go away."
https://twitter.com/Cricket_Ali/status/1458129699805306885
Edit: I see there has been an intervention.
No they shouldn't. Just because TFL have overreached doesn't mean it should be the law.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/covid-vaccines-pfizer-ceo-says-people-who-spread-misinformation-on-shots-are-criminals.html
Pfizer CEO says people who spread misinformation on Covid vaccines are ‘criminals’
"A sexual assault committed by a 'gender fluid' teen who was then transferred to another high school is traumatizing Loudoun County, Virginia."
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/10/29/trans-bathroom-policy-sexual-assault/8568005002/
He wears a skirt, he's bisexual, he is genderfluid, he uses the female toilets, does that make you trans? It certainly makes you transvestite, he is knowingly wearing female clothing; but the modern terminology of the trans issue is so confusing I sincerely admit I do not know if I am using exactly the right words
Here's the heart of the NYT's case that it was nothing to do with trans rights
"The boy was indeed wearing a skirt, but that skirt didn’t authorize him to use the girls’ bathroom. As Amanda Terkel reported in HuffPost, the school district’s trans-inclusive bathroom policies were approved only in August, more than two months after the assault."
See any weaknesses there?
They went to court when the clock struck ten
ETA and look at the sacrifice Cox made by being Attorney General and hence not practising for 2 years.
I imagine he'll be happy to stand down at next GE anyway. he's had his 15 minutes of fame and got his K. He seems an ill-chosen target all round.
It needs cool heads to come together to address the issues on a non party political bases as soon as possible
I agree, especially with your last paragraph, but Paterson has resigned and this morning the news has moved onto Yorkshire CC and back to COP26
If people choose to wear a mask then, that's their choice. If they don't, ditto. That's the law as it is and as it should be.
The guidance to wear masks should be dropped.
Ay the time of the first assault, even if he was trans and was indentfying as a female, he wasn't allowed in the girls toilets anyways. So trying to make this about trans women's access to female toilets is a massive non starter.
My solution would be 100pc unisex toilets - I'm always suspious that females have an easier time sniffing blow in the pub toilets.
Equality For All.
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.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1458098586445664256
Chirac - Convicted of corruption
Sarkozy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_corruption_trial
Hollande - Nothing!
Macron - ?
I'm not sure why you are highhorsing this one. It was a bleak, shabby incident which does not reflect well on Loudon County Schools. Or the New York Times
"Here's the heart of the NYT's case that it was nothing to do with trans rights
"The boy was indeed wearing a skirt, but that skirt didn’t authorize him to use the girls’ bathroom. As Amanda Terkel reported in HuffPost, the school district’s trans-inclusive bathroom policies were approved only in August, more than two months after the assault."
See any weaknesses there?"
I will give you a clue: if a policy is two months away from approval in an organization as bureaucratic as a school, it is virtually in place already.
The opportunity to enter a women's toilet dressed in a skirt is such an open goal for a wide range of male, masculine gender, heterosexual perverts that you can either conceded that the number of them trying to do so is at least, ooh, 50x the number of genuinely trans women wishing to do so, or you have to argue that heterosexual male perversion is a myth concocted by transphobes. Which is it?
Stopping infection isn't something we should be doing with NPIs. That's last year's policy.
We have PIs now. Its time to live with the fact that infections happen, not try to prevent them.
I was in someone else's office today. Refreshingly, after my public sector office which still insists on the mask dance, there was a sign on the door saying that mask wearing was a personal choice and requesting that everyone respect everyone else's choice. Not one mask was in evidence.
Yes, it is a rule. But it is similar in nature to the law about Chester dwellers having to shoot Welshmen on Sundays*
* (yes, I know, I know)
I was speaking to a work colleague of mine in Germany today. He was lambasting the Covid situation there. They are going into the Rhine festival season (not heard of this before and no idea what it is) and apparently this will happen almost without restrictions including lots of cheek kissing, sharing of beer glasses etc. Also as there is no new Chancellor in Germany yet he says that no one is really making decisions and therefore there is a complete lack of leadership. He thinks the Covid situation there is going to get substantially worse very, very quickly.
They are welcome to make their own policies in their own premises just as a pub can say no shoes, no shirt, no service.
But it's not the law. Quite right too.
We went into Salisbury shopping today. It was... surprsingly... busy!
Lots of shoppers and full cafes, especially those with street seating.
60-70% mask wearing in shops I'd say.
Salisbury has had a wretched few years and it is a much underrated place, so it was good to see it looking so lively today.
Report ends.
The law shouldn't be seeking to prevent infections in the community. People should be getting vaccinated.