Only hours to go till the end of month and still no CON poll lead – politicalbetting.com

System

Only hours to go till the end of month and still no CON poll lead – politicalbetting.com

The one British political betting market where we will see an outcome very soon is the Smarkets one on their being a CON poll lead in March. These are the market rules:

Read the full story here

Omnium

Test! (By which I mean first)

kle4

Genuinely surprised it got so close though, that tie may have cost a few people.

IshmaelZ

ONLY HOURS TO GO TILL THE END OF MONTH AND STILL NO BORIS RESIGNATION is more my problem.

IshmaelZ

Market "HALTED" on Smarkets, do they know something?

Omnium

On topic.. The Tories have become very firmly second in the rankings. This has been entirely due to the shabby shennanigans of the PM.

Perhaps 20 years of care and attention totally squandered. Perhaps another destructive Labour government.

It really should have been so easy.

Applicant

Omnium said:

On topic.. The Tories have become very firmly second in the rankings. This has been entirely due to the shabby shennanigans of the PM.

Perhaps 20 years of care and attention totally squandered. Perhaps another destructive Labour government.

It really should have been so easy.

This underrates journalists' tendency to get bored of their narrative and consequent push to create a new one.

Example: the CBI speech. Two years earlier that would have been "just Boris being Boris".

TimS

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

EDIT: seems to be a thing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attrit?msclkid=a697319ab11111eca15048d62714cc5a

londonpubman

Still two years to the GE 👍

TimT

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

I think it is fairly widely used in military and military analyst circles. A neologism, perhaps, but a useful one, so I am ok with it and, in fact, have used it myself.

TheScreamingEagles

IshmaelZ said:

Market "HALTED" on Smarkets, do they know something?

There may be a YouGov poll in tomorrow’s The Times that gets released tonight.

Gary_Burton

kle4 said:

Genuinely surprised it got so close though, that tie may have cost a few people.

I thought we might see a 1 -2% lead with opinium by now. I forgot about Kantar and even that was a tie.

noneoftheabove

Omnium said:

On topic.. The Tories have become very firmly second in the rankings. This has been entirely due to the shabby shennanigans of the PM.

Perhaps 20 years of care and attention totally squandered. Perhaps another destructive Labour government.

It really should have been so easy.

Perhaps if Tory fanboys paid more attention to actually governing and less to owning the libs and whatever policies yougov tell them might be popular today that would have been reflected by the cabinet.

Long term we will mostly have Tory rule, so please could they get their priorities back to governing and away from petty electioneering.

IshmaelZ

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

EDIT: seems to be a thing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attrit?msclkid=a697319ab11111eca15048d62714cc5a

It's from attero, attritus, so should really be atter like deter.

Richard_Nabavi

IshmaelZ said:

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

EDIT: seems to be a thing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attrit?msclkid=a697319ab11111eca15048d62714cc5a

It's from attero, attritus, so should really be atter like deter.

As in detition?

Aslan

Conservatives could easily take the lead by getting rid of Boris and they're being pathetic wimps about it.

IshmaelZ

TheScreamingEagles said:

IshmaelZ said:

Market "HALTED" on Smarkets, do they know something?

There may be a YouGov poll in tomorrow’s The Times that gets released tonight.

Cliffhanger....

FrancisUrquhart

Sajid Javid: Zero Covid has been a disaster - Health Secretary Sajid Javid came into the UnHerd studio to talk to Freddie Sayers and look back at lessons learned from the Covid era.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7yZZKlg-m8

IshmaelZ

Richard_Nabavi said:

IshmaelZ said:

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

EDIT: seems to be a thing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attrit?msclkid=a697319ab11111eca15048d62714cc5a

It's from attero, attritus, so should really be atter like deter.

As in detition?

No, but as in detritus

But I'm now not sure deter/deterrence is the same deter.

Carnyx

TimT said:

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

I think it is fairly widely used in military and military analyst circles. A neologism, perhaps, but a useful one, so I am ok with it and, in fact, have used it myself.

Vanilla? I'd rather use Chambers or OED; and much as I sympathise with TimS, we're a century too late for 'attrit' and about four centuries too late for 'attrite'

1663 G. Harvey Archelogia Philosophica Nova II. i. xxiv. 193 No great bodies have any tast, unless they be first attrited and diminisht by the teeth.

1915 Daily Mail 27 Oct. 4/3 Our Ministers talk of ending this war by ‘attrition’. Who is being ‘attrited’ by these slovenly methods?

TimS

Carnyx said:

TimT said:

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

I think it is fairly widely used in military and military analyst circles. A neologism, perhaps, but a useful one, so I am ok with it and, in fact, have used it myself.

Vanilla? I'd rather use Chambers or OED; and much as I sympathise with TimS, we're a century too late for 'attrit' and about four centuries too late for 'attrite'

1663 G. Harvey Archelogia Philosophica Nova II. i. xxiv. 193 No great bodies have any tast, unless they be first attrited and diminisht by the teeth.

1915 Daily Mail 27 Oct. 4/3 Our Ministers talk of ending this war by ‘attrition’. Who is being ‘attrited’ by these slovenly methods?

Yes I made use of Google immediately after posting and discovered that yes, it is a word. An ugly one. Atter / Attered would be much nicer.

LostPassword

Anyone know why British military intelligence didn't hear about the Russian defeat at Trostyanets?

Who told them that the Russians had taken Sumy?

Why do they think Kharkiv is still encircled when there are reports of the Ukrainians clearing another major road out of the city?

https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1509487294738317312

Leon

Remarkable, desolating footage of Mariupol. A city of 400,000 people - before the war

(No gore, just destruction)

Incredibly, there are still civilians in this desperate place, trying to get out

https://twitter.com/UkraineDiary/status/1509489125447110661?s=20&t=ZGnpSMDvatoRpBfffIGIUw

How can Ukrainians ever make peace with Russia, after this?

NickPalmer

For light relief of the eye-rolling sort, a credit rating saga. I'm trying to help buy a house for a relative, and need to show my credit rating, which is normally very good.

1. Credit Karma writies: your rating has dropped sharply. Read our report to find out why.
2. Report says: you are not now on the electoral register: this reduces your rating. Contact Transunion if you disagree.
3. I've been on the register for decades, and for the last few years at the same address. Get a letter from the Council confirming. Go to Transunion site, click on "Raise a complaint".
4. Transunion ask for details, and then say "Sorry, we haven't been able to verify and validate your identity and can't provide your credit report...some of the most common reasons are [various things that don't apply and]...not being on the Electoral Register." FFS! I didn't ask for a credit report, I asked to have a complaint considered.
5. OK, email Transunion to point out the Catch-22. Get an automated response - we are very busy, might take 14 days or longer to reply.
6. Go back to Credit Karma, send them the Council letter confirming I've been on the register for many years.
7. Credit Karma say "We understand the problem. To hlep us resolve it, we need you to send us a credit report from TransUnion."

Now what? Between them they are causing me potential harm (failure to buy the house), purely because they incorrectly decided to change my details. Is there an Ombudsman covering this?

IshmaelZ

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

TimT said:

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

I think it is fairly widely used in military and military analyst circles. A neologism, perhaps, but a useful one, so I am ok with it and, in fact, have used it myself.

Vanilla? I'd rather use Chambers or OED; and much as I sympathise with TimS, we're a century too late for 'attrit' and about four centuries too late for 'attrite'

1663 G. Harvey Archelogia Philosophica Nova II. i. xxiv. 193 No great bodies have any tast, unless they be first attrited and diminisht by the teeth.

1915 Daily Mail 27 Oct. 4/3 Our Ministers talk of ending this war by ‘attrition’. Who is being ‘attrited’ by these slovenly methods?

Yes I made use of Google immediately after posting and discovered that yes, it is a word. An ugly one. Atter / Attered would be much nicer.

But a false analogy

Detero, detritus rub away

Deterreo, deterritus deter

Cookie

TimT said:

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

I think it is fairly widely used in military and military analyst circles. A neologism, perhaps, but a useful one, so I am ok with it and, in fact, have used it myself.

I rather like it. It's not trying to make a new meaning for an existing word; it's inferring a verb from a noun. One of those words which should exist even if it doesn't - like 'I was whelmed by it' (I had an entirely proportionate emotional response.)

kle4

Leon said:

Remarkable, desolating footage of Mariupol. A city of 400,000 people - before the war

(No gore, just destruction)

Incredibly, there are still civilians in this desperate place, trying to get out

https://twitter.com/UkraineDiary/status/1509489125447110661?s=20&t=ZGnpSMDvatoRpBfffIGIUw

How can Ukrainians ever make peace with Russia, after this?

WW2 would show how remarkably quickly you can be allies with a nation which was an enemy. Total defeat of Russia and a brand new regime would seem a good way for peace in that case.

Can't say I'm optimistic - mood music on the news updates seem to be to get ready for a long one.

kinabalu

IshmaelZ said:

ONLY HOURS TO GO TILL THE END OF MONTH AND STILL NO BORIS RESIGNATION is more my problem.

It's OUR problem, Ishmael. You, me, Dupree, and every single person with an interest in maintaining at least a de minimus level of integrity in our politics and public life.

I rather think it'll come down to the electorate. In 2024 they'll have the chance to do the necessary. So so big it's gonna be ... nothing less than our collective self-respect is on the line. I'm nervous now and it's over 2 years away.

But I have faith. C'mon you British people! You can do it. You WILL do it.

IshmaelZ

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

ONLY HOURS TO GO TILL THE END OF MONTH AND STILL NO BORIS RESIGNATION is more my problem.

It's OUR problem, Ishmael. You, me, Dupree, and every single person with an interest in maintaining at least a de minimus level of integrity in our politics and public life.

I rather think it'll come down to the electorate. In 2024 they'll have the chance to do the necessary. So so big it's gonna be ... nothing less than our collective self-respect is on the line. I'm nervous now and it's over 2 years away.

But I have faith. C'mon you British people! You can do it. You WILL do it.

And sharing is caring, so i'll let you have 50% of my problem for 50% of the stake money. Kind of guy I am.

IshmaelZ

NickPalmer said:

For light relief of the eye-rolling sort, a credit rating saga. I'm trying to help buy a house for a relative, and need to show my credit rating, which is normally very good.

1. Credit Karma writies: your rating has dropped sharply. Read our report to find out why.
2. Report says: you are not now on the electoral register: this reduces your rating. Contact Transunion if you disagree.
3. I've been on the register for decades, and for the last few years at the same address. Get a letter from the Council confirming. Go to Transunion site, click on "Raise a complaint".
4. Transunion ask for details, and then say "Sorry, we haven't been able to verify and validate your identity and can't provide your credit report...some of the most common reasons are [various things that don't apply and]...not being on the Electoral Register." FFS! I didn't ask for a credit report, I asked to have a complaint considered.
5. OK, email Transunion to point out the Catch-22. Get an automated response - we are very busy, might take 14 days or longer to reply.
6. Go back to Credit Karma, send them the Council letter confirming I've been on the register for many years.
7. Credit Karma say "We understand the problem. To hlep us resolve it, we need you to send us a credit report from TransUnion."

Now what? Between them they are causing me potential harm (failure to buy the house), purely because they incorrectly decided to change my details. Is there an Ombudsman covering this?

You could try giving Transunion public grief on https://twitter.com/TransUnionUK

Name like that they may be busy fending off serious misunderstandings just at the mo. There's a Mr Wallis urgently needs to speak to you...

Lennon

NickPalmer said:

For light relief of the eye-rolling sort, a credit rating saga. I'm trying to help buy a house for a relative, and need to show my credit rating, which is normally very good.

1. Credit Karma writies: your rating has dropped sharply. Read our report to find out why.
2. Report says: you are not now on the electoral register: this reduces your rating. Contact Transunion if you disagree.
3. I've been on the register for decades, and for the last few years at the same address. Get a letter from the Council confirming. Go to Transunion site, click on "Raise a complaint".
4. Transunion ask for details, and then say "Sorry, we haven't been able to verify and validate your identity and can't provide your credit report...some of the most common reasons are [various things that don't apply and]...not being on the Electoral Register." FFS! I didn't ask for a credit report, I asked to have a complaint considered.
5. OK, email Transunion to point out the Catch-22. Get an automated response - we are very busy, might take 14 days or longer to reply.
6. Go back to Credit Karma, send them the Council letter confirming I've been on the register for many years.
7. Credit Karma say "We understand the problem. To hlep us resolve it, we need you to send us a credit report from TransUnion."

Now what? Between them they are causing me potential harm (failure to buy the house), purely because they incorrectly decided to change my details. Is there an Ombudsman covering this?

Financial Ombudsman. (See towards the bottom of TranUnion's complaints procedure): https://www.transunion.co.uk/legal/consumer-centre#complaints-procedure

Suspect that you should put your complaint in writing and it will be more than 14days to respond - but you should be able to raise it to the Ombudsman highlighting the time-critical nature.

Potentially in the meantime - get a copy of your credit rating with someone else and show CreditKarma (or whoever is actually at the top of the chain - presumably a mortgage bank) that you're fine.

Good luck!

kinabalu

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

ONLY HOURS TO GO TILL THE END OF MONTH AND STILL NO BORIS RESIGNATION is more my problem.

It's OUR problem, Ishmael. You, me, Dupree, and every single person with an interest in maintaining at least a de minimus level of integrity in our politics and public life.

I rather think it'll come down to the electorate. In 2024 they'll have the chance to do the necessary. So so big it's gonna be ... nothing less than our collective self-respect is on the line. I'm nervous now and it's over 2 years away.

But I have faith. C'mon you British people! You can do it. You WILL do it.

And sharing is caring, so i'll let you have 50% of my problem for 50% of the stake money. Kind of guy I am.

Ha, a nice idea, but my bets are the other way (sheepish face emoji).

Leon

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Remarkable, desolating footage of Mariupol. A city of 400,000 people - before the war

(No gore, just destruction)

Incredibly, there are still civilians in this desperate place, trying to get out

https://twitter.com/UkraineDiary/status/1509489125447110661?s=20&t=ZGnpSMDvatoRpBfffIGIUw

How can Ukrainians ever make peace with Russia, after this?

WW2 would show how remarkably quickly you can be allies with a nation which was an enemy. Total defeat of Russia and a brand new regime would seem a good way for peace in that case.

Can't say I'm optimistic - mood music on the news updates seem to be to get ready for a long one.

Yes, you can make peace IF you win and the assailant is defeated. We became friends with Germany and Japan BECAUSE they were annihilated. They paid for their sins

If Russia is not punished for this then I don't see a stable peace; indeed, like you, today I have a dark foreboding that this war is going to grind on, and on

Awful

And now to cheer myself up I am going to go pack. Travelling tomorrow with near-zero Covid faff. YAY

Stuartinromford

Aslan said:

Conservatives could easily take the lead by getting rid of Boris and they're being pathetic wimps about it.

Serves them right, really.

Lots of Conservative MPs let Boris become PM, knowing he was a duffer at best and in utter sh1t at worst, because they wanted to exploit his magic fairy dust.

Now they're stuck with him. I wouldn't mind if it weren't my country.

TimS

Leon said:

Remarkable, desolating footage of Mariupol. A city of 400,000 people - before the war

(No gore, just destruction)

Incredibly, there are still civilians in this desperate place, trying to get out

https://twitter.com/UkraineDiary/status/1509489125447110661?s=20&t=ZGnpSMDvatoRpBfffIGIUw

How can Ukrainians ever make peace with Russia, after this?

It seems there is often one city in large conventional wars that gets utterly destroyed because it becomes an oversized strategic must-win for both sides, while others get off more lightly. Mariupol seems to be the one, like Stalingrad in WW2 of course, and Berlin (though that is not analogous to Mariupol as it was the capital). Ypres in WW1 but mainly just because it was in the way. Hue in Vietnam.

I can see why the Russians want Mariupol because it cements their land-bridge from Donbass to Crimea. I can see why Ukraine doesn't want to give it up, for the same reason. I wonder whether there's also a Ukrainian calculation that if you make Russia concentrate much of its firepower and soldiers on one city, and as a result deplete their ammunition and human resources, you create the conditions to advance elsewhere in the South and East.

Would be interesting to see if Ukrainian forces from the North could drive a wedge into the city. There's only a fairly narrow coastal corridor under Russian control. Might make them sitting ducks for artillery though.

kinabalu

Stuartinromford said:

Aslan said:

Conservatives could easily take the lead by getting rid of Boris and they're being pathetic wimps about it.

Serves them right, really.

Lots of Conservative MPs let Boris become PM, knowing he was a duffer at best and in utter sh1t at worst, because they wanted to exploit his magic fairy dust.

Now they're stuck with him. I wouldn't mind if it weren't my country.

Yep you could have a mildly satisfying laugh-and-point then. But as it is ...

DecrepiterJohnL

TheScreamingEagles said:

IshmaelZ said:

Market "HALTED" on Smarkets, do they know something?

There may be a YouGov poll in tomorrow’s The Times that gets released tonight.

If the poll is in tomorrow's Times, is it released today or tomorrow for betting purposes?

Stuartinromford

Meanwhile, whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, this justification is balls, isn't it?

Jaw-dropping government u-turn on banning conversion therapy, revealed by @PaulBrandITV. Here is odd justification: “Given unprecedented circumstances of major pressures on cost of living and the crisis in Ukraine, there is an urgent need to rationalise our legislative programme”

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1509575098734465034?t=qCrRMQIXC2BOHt3FQDK7WQ&s=19

Applicant

NickPalmer said:

For light relief of the eye-rolling sort, a credit rating saga. I'm trying to help buy a house for a relative, and need to show my credit rating, which is normally very good.

1. Credit Karma writies: your rating has dropped sharply. Read our report to find out why.
2. Report says: you are not now on the electoral register: this reduces your rating. Contact Transunion if you disagree.
3. I've been on the register for decades, and for the last few years at the same address. Get a letter from the Council confirming. Go to Transunion site, click on "Raise a complaint".
4. Transunion ask for details, and then say "Sorry, we haven't been able to verify and validate your identity and can't provide your credit report...some of the most common reasons are [various things that don't apply and]...not being on the Electoral Register." FFS! I didn't ask for a credit report, I asked to have a complaint considered.
5. OK, email Transunion to point out the Catch-22. Get an automated response - we are very busy, might take 14 days or longer to reply.
6. Go back to Credit Karma, send them the Council letter confirming I've been on the register for many years.
7. Credit Karma say "We understand the problem. To hlep us resolve it, we need you to send us a credit report from TransUnion."

Now what? Between them they are causing me potential harm (failure to buy the house), purely because they incorrectly decided to change my details. Is there an Ombudsman covering this?

Short term, maybe get a credit report from Experian or Equifax? Has TransUnion been specified?

noneoftheabove

NickPalmer said:

For light relief of the eye-rolling sort, a credit rating saga. I'm trying to help buy a house for a relative, and need to show my credit rating, which is normally very good.

1. Credit Karma writies: your rating has dropped sharply. Read our report to find out why.
2. Report says: you are not now on the electoral register: this reduces your rating. Contact Transunion if you disagree.
3. I've been on the register for decades, and for the last few years at the same address. Get a letter from the Council confirming. Go to Transunion site, click on "Raise a complaint".
4. Transunion ask for details, and then say "Sorry, we haven't been able to verify and validate your identity and can't provide your credit report...some of the most common reasons are [various things that don't apply and]...not being on the Electoral Register." FFS! I didn't ask for a credit report, I asked to have a complaint considered.
5. OK, email Transunion to point out the Catch-22. Get an automated response - we are very busy, might take 14 days or longer to reply.
6. Go back to Credit Karma, send them the Council letter confirming I've been on the register for many years.
7. Credit Karma say "We understand the problem. To hlep us resolve it, we need you to send us a credit report from TransUnion."

Now what? Between them they are causing me potential harm (failure to buy the house), purely because they incorrectly decided to change my details. Is there an Ombudsman covering this?

Not more trans stuff! Although I can see why they want a union.

TimT

Cookie said:

TimT said:

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

I think it is fairly widely used in military and military analyst circles. A neologism, perhaps, but a useful one, so I am ok with it and, in fact, have used it myself.

I rather like it. It's not trying to make a new meaning for an existing word; it's inferring a verb from a noun. One of those words which should exist even if it doesn't - like 'I was whelmed by it' (I had an entirely proportionate emotional response.)

I do like the whole create a positive for the negative words thing - the old inert/ert discussion. Plenty of good words available if we go that route.

And creating verbs from nouns is very Shakespearean - uncle me, no uncle.

Carnyx

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, this justification is balls, isn't it?

Jaw-dropping government u-turn on banning conversion therapy, revealed by @PaulBrandITV. Here is odd justification: “Given unprecedented circumstances of major pressures on cost of living and the crisis in Ukraine, there is an urgent need to rationalise our legislative programme”

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1509575098734465034?t=qCrRMQIXC2BOHt3FQDK7WQ&s=19

The justification certainly is about balls, in part ...

kle4

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, this justification is balls, isn't it?

Jaw-dropping government u-turn on banning conversion therapy, revealed by @PaulBrandITV. Here is odd justification: “Given unprecedented circumstances of major pressures on cost of living and the crisis in Ukraine, there is an urgent need to rationalise our legislative programme”

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1509575098734465034?t=qCrRMQIXC2BOHt3FQDK7WQ&s=19

Of course rejigging is necessary at times, but it is a bit suspiciously catch all as far as excuses go. Surprised they didn't add in the continued aftermath of Covid.

TheScreamingEagles

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

IshmaelZ said:

Market "HALTED" on Smarkets, do they know something?

There may be a YouGov poll in tomorrow’s The Times that gets released tonight.

If the poll is in tomorrow's Times, is it released today or tomorrow for betting purposes?

IIRC it has to be released in to the public domain before 23.59 tonight.

HYUFD

Aslan said:

Conservatives could easily take the lead by getting rid of Boris and they're being pathetic wimps about it.

Would they? Sunak only ties Starmer with RedfieldWilton as best PM while Johnson leads him

Sunil_Prasannan

Apologies if already mentioned:

Survation 28-30 Mar

Lab 42 (nc)
Con 35 (nc)
LD 9
SNP 4
Grn 3
Ref 2

Cyclefree

FPT
@kinabalu
"You argue that trans women who haven't had surgery should be excluded from women's toilets & changing rooms.

Questions on this if I may.

Would this be policed & if so how?

The transition process (as is) mandates living in your target gender for a time. If M/F, a key part of this is being able to navigate female spaces. How can you achieve this if you're prohibited from using them?"

My answer-

The transition process does not mandate how you must live as your acquired gender so there is no requirement to show that you are using loos etc.

But the answers are: trust - challenge - expectations.

Let me clarify. Before the TRAs started demanding access as of right for any man who said he was a woman, there was a high degree of trust & expectations around women only spaces. People - both men & women - understood who they were for & why. If the wrong person came in, they could expect to be challenged & had no defence.

Now they were not perfect. Doubtless transsexuals did use them & women might have been ok with that because it was obvious what they were & that this was a one off. And also that these were genuine. People understood that there were boundaries & why & respected them.

But the demands of TRAs to have no boundaries, to breach them, to demand as of right, to regard the idea of womens consent as somehow offensive has eroded that trust. So rather than have empathy for a transgender man seeking to transition, the reaction has been - we can't trust men to respect our need for boundaries so no, none of you can come in. The TRAs have done the cause of transgender people great harm because they have attacked the very idea of boundaries & consent.

Checking peoples' genitals is absurd & was not needed before because women could trust men not breach the boundaries & know they did not belong in womens loos. And because women could rely on that they were ok to allow a few genuine transgender women in.

So now we have to rebuild that. Which is why I think you have to say clearly the expectation is that men do not seek to go into female spaces unless invited by women. If challenged, if women feel uncomfortable, they leave. And over time, then women can get comfortable with allowing those who are genuinely dysphoric to use women-only spaces by invitation.

But it has to start with men understanding the need for female boundaries & not seeking to demolish them or breach them. And I am afraid when I see the arguments and aggression from TRAs and attacks on women etc I see those who refuse to understand why women need boundaries, why it matters to them & why "no" means "no". I see - in short - precisely the sort of male entitlement & aggression which can lead to abuse.

And that is why I do not want self-ID. I personally do not mind a genuine transwoman using a female loo. But if I cannot be certain that she is genuine - as I can't be with self-ID - then I don't want to take the risk & will say no to any man at all.

TimT

LOL Here we have an example of the much vaunted Chechen fighters...

https://twitter.com/Ozkok_A/status/1509582191726112768

FrancisUrquhart

TimT said:

LOL Here we have an example of the much vaunted Chechen fighters...

https://twitter.com/Ozkok_A/status/1509582191726112768

The falling off the motorbike still trumps that. It was literally a scene out of the Inbetweeners.

TimT

FrancisUrquhart said:

TimT said:

LOL Here we have an example of the much vaunted Chechen fighters...

https://twitter.com/Ozkok_A/status/1509582191726112768

The falling off the motorbike still trumps that. It was literally a scene out of the Inbetweeners.

Think I missed that one.

NickPalmer

Applicant said:

Short term, maybe get a credit report from Experian or Equifax? Has TransUnion been specified?

Good idea, thanks! No, they didn't specify which.

NickPalmer

Lennon said:

Financial Ombudsman. (See towards the bottom of TranUnion's complaints procedure): https://www.transunion.co.uk/legal/consumer-centre#complaints-procedure

Suspect that you should put your complaint in writing and it will be more than 14days to respond - but you should be able to raise it to the Ombudsman highlighting the time-critical nature.

Potentially in the meantime - get a copy of your credit rating with someone else and show CreditKarma (or whoever is actually at the top of the chain - presumably a mortgage bank) that you're fine.

Good luck!

Thanks very much!

LostPassword

TimS said:

Leon said:

Remarkable, desolating footage of Mariupol. A city of 400,000 people - before the war

(No gore, just destruction)

Incredibly, there are still civilians in this desperate place, trying to get out

https://twitter.com/UkraineDiary/status/1509489125447110661?s=20&t=ZGnpSMDvatoRpBfffIGIUw

How can Ukrainians ever make peace with Russia, after this?

It seems there is often one city in large conventional wars that gets utterly destroyed because it becomes an oversized strategic must-win for both sides, while others get off more lightly. Mariupol seems to be the one, like Stalingrad in WW2 of course, and Berlin (though that is not analogous to Mariupol as it was the capital). Ypres in WW1 but mainly just because it was in the way. Hue in Vietnam.

I can see why the Russians want Mariupol because it cements their land-bridge from Donbass to Crimea. I can see why Ukraine doesn't want to give it up, for the same reason. I wonder whether there's also a Ukrainian calculation that if you make Russia concentrate much of its firepower and soldiers on one city, and as a result deplete their ammunition and human resources, you create the conditions to advance elsewhere in the South and East.

Would be interesting to see if Ukrainian forces from the North could drive a wedge into the city. There's only a fairly narrow coastal corridor under Russian control. Might make them sitting ducks for artillery though.

I get the impression that the Ukrainians would defend any city as fiercely as they've defended Mariupol, it's just that they were caught by surprise a bit in the early days of the war, and so lost a few places (Kherson, Melitopol, Berdyansk) before they were properly organised.

I've also heard that a lot of the local war effort is organised by Mayors, and so the degree of resistance may also largely depend on the competence of the local mayor at least as much as a strategic calculation in Kyiv.

tlg86

A bit of fun ahead of tomorrow's World Cup draw:

https://draw.inker.one/#/wc/gs/2022

I ran 100 simulations of the draw and these are the percentages for the UEFA teams in Pot 1 (i.e. England):



So just a 3% chance of being drawn against Scotland/Ukraine/Wales.

And the figures for Scotland/Ukraine/Wales:



So they have a 16% chance of drawing a Pot 1 UEFA team (i.e. 5 * 3.2%). How the remaining 84% splits between the other three teams is subject to a bigger margin of error, but I make it 50:50 that they get Argentina or Brazil and about a 1 in 3 chance of drawing Qatar.

darkage

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10662723/Ukrainian-woman-gang-raped-drunk-Russian-soldiers-four-year-old-son-wept.html

A story from a few days ago. From a suburb of Kiev, so not exactly some part of the Donbass. Revisiting the worst horrors of the twentieth century. Any negotiated 'peace' settlement is, in my view, bad news.

NickPalmer

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Apologies if already mentioned:

Survation 28-30 Mar

Lab 42 (nc)
Con 35 (nc)
LD 9
SNP 4
Grn 3
Ref 2

Wow! Outlier? Or what?

HYUFD

NickPalmer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Apologies if already mentioned:

Survation 28-30 Mar

Lab 42 (nc)
Con 35 (nc)
LD 9
SNP 4
Grn 3
Ref 2

Wow! Outlier? Or what?

The Conservative score isn't, just the LD and Green scores are lower helping Labour

MattW

NickPalmer said:

For light relief of the eye-rolling sort, a credit rating saga. I'm trying to help buy a house for a relative, and need to show my credit rating, which is normally very good.

1. Credit Karma writies: your rating has dropped sharply. Read our report to find out why.
2. Report says: you are not now on the electoral register: this reduces your rating. Contact Transunion if you disagree.
3. I've been on the register for decades, and for the last few years at the same address. Get a letter from the Council confirming. Go to Transunion site, click on "Raise a complaint".
4. Transunion ask for details, and then say "Sorry, we haven't been able to verify and validate your identity and can't provide your credit report...some of the most common reasons are [various things that don't apply and]...not being on the Electoral Register." FFS! I didn't ask for a credit report, I asked to have a complaint considered.
5. OK, email Transunion to point out the Catch-22. Get an automated response - we are very busy, might take 14 days or longer to reply.
6. Go back to Credit Karma, send them the Council letter confirming I've been on the register for many years.
7. Credit Karma say "We understand the problem. To hlep us resolve it, we need you to send us a credit report from TransUnion."

Now what? Between them they are causing me potential harm (failure to buy the house), purely because they incorrectly decided to change my details. Is there an Ombudsman covering this?

@NickPalmer I would go straight to raise a dispute with Credit Karma, which aiui will push them to check with the information supplier and apply a verdict within 28 days.

I don't want a "more miserable" competition, however my Credit Karma rating collapsed yesterday.

A power company has Defaulted an account that is actually in Dispute over incorrect estimated energy readings - hundreds of £££ wrong. 117 points gone in one swoop.

I'm going to have to throw the full enchilada at it - that is a long time to recover from if not overturned.

The only bright spot is that I saw an issue raised a day (but no idea what) or two before it reached the CC search, so I had a day or two chance to take out a 0% balance transfer card to wrap up the last 12 months of my car loan interest free.

MattW

darkage said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10662723/Ukrainian-woman-gang-raped-drunk-Russian-soldiers-four-year-old-son-wept.html

A story from a few days ago. From a suburb of Kiev, so not exactly some part of the Donbass. Revisiting the worst horrors of the twentieth century. Any negotiated 'peace' settlement is, in my view, bad news.

Awful story, and an unfortunate order of keyword spam.

CorrectHorseBattery

Survation showing no change. Sorry for all those who placed a bet. Thought you’d win.

NickPalmer

MattW said:

@NickPalmer I would go straight to raise a dispute with Credit Karma, which aiui will push them to check with the information supplier and apply a verdict within 28 days.

I don't want a "more miserable" competition, however my Credit Karma rating collapsed yesterday.

A power company has Defaulted an account that is actually in Dispute over incorrect estimated energy readings - hundreds of £££ wrong. 117 points gone in one swoop.

I'm going to have to throw the full enchilada at it - that is a long time to recover from if not overturned.

The only bright spot is that I saw an issue raised a day (but no idea what) or two before it reached the CC search, so I had a day or two chance to take out a 0% balance transfer card to wrap up the last 12 months of my car loan interest free.

I've raised the dispute and they responded politely and promptly, but said they need the report that Transunion decline to give me, "in order that we can investigate". I explained and asked them to escalate.

Your case sounds MUCH worse, sympathies. I absolutely see the need for credit rating companies, but they operate a bit like medieval monarchs, remote from all control by ordinary human beings. Good luck!

Nigelb

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, this justification is balls, isn't it?

Jaw-dropping government u-turn on banning conversion therapy, revealed by @PaulBrandITV. Here is odd justification: “Given unprecedented circumstances of major pressures on cost of living and the crisis in Ukraine, there is an urgent need to rationalise our legislative programme”

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1509575098734465034?t=qCrRMQIXC2BOHt3FQDK7WQ&s=19

Who was it who said “I think [conversion therapy is] absolutely abhorrent…and we will bring forward plans to ban it” ?

Wulfrun_Phil

NickPalmer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Apologies if already mentioned:

Survation 28-30 Mar

Lab 42 (nc)
Con 35 (nc)
LD 9
SNP 4
Grn 3
Ref 2

Wow! Outlier? Or what?

Just to improve your evening further Nick, it's a UK poll including NI, so on the usual GB basis the Lab percentage would be up at 43%.

It may be an outlier. But on the other hand, Partygate has been back in the news to remind everyone just how much of a sleezebag Johnson is.

HYUFD

Wulfrun_Phil said:

NickPalmer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Apologies if already mentioned:

Survation 28-30 Mar

Lab 42 (nc)
Con 35 (nc)
LD 9
SNP 4
Grn 3
Ref 2

Wow! Outlier? Or what?

Just to improve your evening further Nick, it's a UK poll including NI, so on the usual GB basis the Lab percentage would be up at 43%.

It may be an outlier. But on the other hand, Partygate has been back in the news to remind everyone just how much of a sleezebag Johnson is.

Still not enough for a Labour majority though. Albeit it would give Labour most seats on 312 after the boundary changes
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35&LAB=42&LIB=9&Reform=2&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=18.3&SCOTLAB=20.2&SCOTLIB=6.6&SCOTReform=0.9&SCOTGreen=3&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

Leon

There was definitely a cover-up. It was probably a lab leak.


BREAKING: my @VanityFair investigation into @EcoHealthNYC, @NIAIDNews transparency and debate over #COVID19 origins is live. Vanity Fair obtained over 100,000 internal EcoHealth Alliance documents including meeting minutes, internal emails, reports. vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/t… /1

https://twitter.com/katherineeban/status/1509578742577958923?s=21&t=_SNJM-c2cEPbdQpnxSn9fA

kinabalu

@Cyclefree

Ok, read that, thanks vm. Illuminating. It confirms something I've suspected - that in response to these monomaniac "TRAs" you have ended up radicalized and arguing a more hardline (and imo not completely rational) position than you otherwise would have been.

And the opposite happens too, I think. The 2 sides are stoking up each other.

Cheers and beers for now anyway.

Wulfrun_Phil

HYUFD said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

NickPalmer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Apologies if already mentioned:

Survation 28-30 Mar

Lab 42 (nc)
Con 35 (nc)
LD 9
SNP 4
Grn 3
Ref 2

Wow! Outlier? Or what?

Just to improve your evening further Nick, it's a UK poll including NI, so on the usual GB basis the Lab percentage would be up at 43%.

It may be an outlier. But on the other hand, Partygate has been back in the news to remind everyone just how much of a sleezebag Johnson is.

Still not enough for a Labour majority though. Albeit it would give Labour most seats on 312 after the boundary changes
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35&LAB=42&LIB=9&Reform=2&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=18.3&SCOTLAB=20.2&SCOTLIB=6.6&SCOTReform=0.9&SCOTGreen=3&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

Yes, I know the dice are loaded in favour of your lot and will be further loaded after the Boundary Commission.

Mexicanpete

londonpubman said:

Still two years to the GE 👍

Nearly three now!

Benpointer

Carnyx said:

TimT said:

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

I think it is fairly widely used in military and military analyst circles. A neologism, perhaps, but a useful one, so I am ok with it and, in fact, have used it myself.

Vanilla? I'd rather use Chambers or OED; and much as I sympathise with TimS, we're a century too late for 'attrit' and about four centuries too late for 'attrite'

1663 G. Harvey Archelogia Philosophica Nova II. i. xxiv. 193 No great bodies have any tast, unless they be first attrited and diminisht by the teeth.

1915 Daily Mail 27 Oct. 4/3 Our Ministers talk of ending this war by ‘attrition’. Who is being ‘attrited’ by these slovenly methods?

The verb would surely be to attrite rather than to attrit (since attrit would give a pp of attritted).

Edit: perhaps attrite has, er, suffered attrition and become attrit?

williamglenn

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, this justification is balls, isn't it?

Jaw-dropping government u-turn on banning conversion therapy, revealed by @PaulBrandITV. Here is odd justification: “Given unprecedented circumstances of major pressures on cost of living and the crisis in Ukraine, there is an urgent need to rationalise our legislative programme”

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1509575098734465034

I like the way the article refers to the man from Northern Ireland as having grown up in "the Christian community".

Carnyx

Benpointer said:

Carnyx said:

TimT said:

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

I think it is fairly widely used in military and military analyst circles. A neologism, perhaps, but a useful one, so I am ok with it and, in fact, have used it myself.

Vanilla? I'd rather use Chambers or OED; and much as I sympathise with TimS, we're a century too late for 'attrit' and about four centuries too late for 'attrite'

1663 G. Harvey Archelogia Philosophica Nova II. i. xxiv. 193 No great bodies have any tast, unless they be first attrited and diminisht by the teeth.

1915 Daily Mail 27 Oct. 4/3 Our Ministers talk of ending this war by ‘attrition’. Who is being ‘attrited’ by these slovenly methods?

The verb would surely be to attrite rather than to attrit.

It was, in the 1660s (not clear from my edited sample, admittedly). Not in 1915, obvs.

Benpointer

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:

Carnyx said:

TimT said:

TimS said:

Vocab question: is there such a verb as "to attrit"? Lots of Ukraine conflict tweets talking about troops being "attrited", which sort of makes sense given attrition, but it's the first time I've come across attrit. It's an ugly word, particularly in its attrited incarnation.

The spelling and grammar checker on Vanilla clearly thinks it's a made up word.

I think it is fairly widely used in military and military analyst circles. A neologism, perhaps, but a useful one, so I am ok with it and, in fact, have used it myself.

Vanilla? I'd rather use Chambers or OED; and much as I sympathise with TimS, we're a century too late for 'attrit' and about four centuries too late for 'attrite'

1663 G. Harvey Archelogia Philosophica Nova II. i. xxiv. 193 No great bodies have any tast, unless they be first attrited and diminisht by the teeth.

1915 Daily Mail 27 Oct. 4/3 Our Ministers talk of ending this war by ‘attrition’. Who is being ‘attrited’ by these slovenly methods?

The verb would surely be to attrite rather than to attrit.

It was, in the 1660s (not clear from my edited sample, admittedly). Not in 1915, obvs.

Sorry, yes - misread your post the first time.

DecrepiterJohnL

Leon said:

There was definitely a cover-up. It was probably a lab leak.


BREAKING: my @VanityFair investigation into @EcoHealthNYC, @NIAIDNews transparency and debate over #COVID19 origins is live. Vanity Fair obtained over 100,000 internal EcoHealth Alliance documents including meeting minutes, internal emails, reports. vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/t… /1

https://twitter.com/katherineeban/status/1509578742577958923?s=21&t=_SNJM-c2cEPbdQpnxSn9fA

Ah, I see we are back to trusting journalists on Covid. There may have been a cover-up but that does not mean there was a lab leak.

MattW

FPT:

CarlottaVance said:

Real reason for departure of French mil intel chief seems more complicated—incl Macron's concern that they didn't see Mali coup coming.

https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1509565591358689286

You have to smile. He was only there because the President intervened to get him appointed last year.

Information: the departure of the boss of the DRM the gal Eric Vidaud decided by E. Macron, revealed by the Opinion "is the result of a casting error of the Head of State when he appointed him last summer “, says an informed source at the Ministry of Defense, beyond Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/Malbrunot/status/1509440331993042948

https://www.intelligenceonline.com/government-intelligence/2021/08/23/director-of-military-intelligence-to-be-bertrand-toujouse-sidelined-by-eric-vidaud,109686321-art

Benpointer

Leon said:

There was definitely a cover-up. It was probably a lab leak.


BREAKING: my @VanityFair investigation into @EcoHealthNYC, @NIAIDNews transparency and debate over #COVID19 origins is live. Vanity Fair obtained over 100,000 internal EcoHealth Alliance documents including meeting minutes, internal emails, reports. vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/t… /1

https://twitter.com/katherineeban/status/1509578742577958923?s=21&t=_SNJM-c2cEPbdQpnxSn9fA

Vanity Fair?!

What next, an OK magazine special exposé of Dark Matter?
Homes and Gardens proves the existence of God?

gettingbetter

Leon said:

There was definitely a cover-up. It was probably a lab leak.

Bayes' theorem would suggest you are right, considering all the possible places the first outbreak could have occurred.

Stuartinromford

Wulfrun_Phil said:

NickPalmer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Apologies if already mentioned:

Survation 28-30 Mar

Lab 42 (nc)
Con 35 (nc)
LD 9
SNP 4
Grn 3
Ref 2

Wow! Outlier? Or what?

Just to improve your evening further Nick, it's a UK poll including NI, so on the usual GB basis the Lab percentage would be up at 43%.

It may be an outlier. But on the other hand, Partygate has been back in the news to remind everyone just how much of a sleezebag Johnson is.

If the true lead is Lab +4, then Lab +1 and Lab +7 are both fairly reasonably within the edge of the measurement range.

And if the needle has settled at Lab +4, it's a similar pattern to other bad news for the government events.

A big sudden swing against the government when the scandal breaks. Then a bounce back, but not a complete one- some voters are lost long-term.

If this keeps happening, there's a problem that will add up over a couple more years

Richard_Nabavi

Some good charts in this thread on UK polling and how the two main parties are doing:

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1509588216793419785

Stocky

NickPalmer said:

For light relief of the eye-rolling sort, a credit rating saga. I'm trying to help buy a house for a relative, and need to show my credit rating, which is normally very good.

1. Credit Karma writies: your rating has dropped sharply. Read our report to find out why.
2. Report says: you are not now on the electoral register: this reduces your rating. Contact Transunion if you disagree.
3. I've been on the register for decades, and for the last few years at the same address. Get a letter from the Council confirming. Go to Transunion site, click on "Raise a complaint".
4. Transunion ask for details, and then say "Sorry, we haven't been able to verify and validate your identity and can't provide your credit report...some of the most common reasons are [various things that don't apply and]...not being on the Electoral Register." FFS! I didn't ask for a credit report, I asked to have a complaint considered.
5. OK, email Transunion to point out the Catch-22. Get an automated response - we are very busy, might take 14 days or longer to reply.
6. Go back to Credit Karma, send them the Council letter confirming I've been on the register for many years.
7. Credit Karma say "We understand the problem. To hlep us resolve it, we need you to send us a credit report from TransUnion."

Now what? Between them they are causing me potential harm (failure to buy the house), purely because they incorrectly decided to change my details. Is there an Ombudsman covering this?

@NickPalmer

A credit check should cost you a statutory maximum of £2 - from Experian, TransUnion or Equifax. You could get one from all 3. Don't let them charge you more than £2.

I've never heard of Credit Karma. They seems to be a middle-man between you and the real agencies. Why have you got involved with these guys?

Lenders doing credit checks when you apply for a loan or mortgage are using one (or more) of the big three. So go direct to them.

Stereodog

Cyclefree said:

FPT
@kinabalu
"You argue that trans women who haven't had surgery should be excluded from women's toilets & changing rooms.

Questions on this if I may.

Would this be policed & if so how?

The transition process (as is) mandates living in your target gender for a time. If M/F, a key part of this is being able to navigate female spaces. How can you achieve this if you're prohibited from using them?"

My answer-

The transition process does not mandate how you must live as your acquired gender so there is no requirement to show that you are using loos etc.

But the answers are: trust - challenge - expectations.

Let me clarify. Before the TRAs started demanding access as of right for any man who said he was a woman, there was a high degree of trust & expectations around women only spaces. People - both men & women - understood who they were for & why. If the wrong person came in, they could expect to be challenged & had no defence.

Now they were not perfect. Doubtless transsexuals did use them & women might have been ok with that because it was obvious what they were & that this was a one off. And also that these were genuine. People understood that there were boundaries & why & respected them.

But the demands of TRAs to have no boundaries, to breach them, to demand as of right, to regard the idea of womens consent as somehow offensive has eroded that trust. So rather than have empathy for a transgender man seeking to transition, the reaction has been - we can't trust men to respect our need for boundaries so no, none of you can come in. The TRAs have done the cause of transgender people great harm because they have attacked the very idea of boundaries & consent.

Checking peoples' genitals is absurd & was not needed before because women could trust men not breach the boundaries & know they did not belong in womens loos. And because women could rely on that they were ok to allow a few genuine transgender women in.

So now we have to rebuild that. Which is why I think you have to say clearly the expectation is that men do not seek to go into female spaces unless invited by women. If challenged, if women feel uncomfortable, they leave. And over time, then women can get comfortable with allowing those who are genuinely dysphoric to use women-only spaces by invitation.

But it has to start with men understanding the need for female boundaries & not seeking to demolish them or breach them. And I am afraid when I see the arguments and aggression from TRAs and attacks on women etc I see those who refuse to understand why women need boundaries, why it matters to them & why "no" means "no". I see - in short - precisely the sort of male entitlement & aggression which can lead to abuse.

And that is why I do not want self-ID. I personally do not mind a genuine transwoman using a female loo. But if I cannot be certain that she is genuine - as I can't be with self-ID - then I don't want to take the risk & will say no to any man at all.

Your views are entirely sensible but how can anyone possibly know how many pre operative trans women are already using female loos without incident? My problem with the trans debate is that both sides dig in on scenarios which are if not hypothetical then vanishingly rare. How many women would discriminate against a trans women using a female toilet? How many trans women use female toilets for nefarious purposes? I worked on a parliamentary report on sexual identity and it was impossible because each side giving evidence immediately dug into the most extreme version of their argument.

MattW

Stocky said:

NickPalmer said:

For light relief of the eye-rolling sort, a credit rating saga. I'm trying to help buy a house for a relative, and need to show my credit rating, which is normally very good.

1. Credit Karma writies: your rating has dropped sharply. Read our report to find out why.
2. Report says: you are not now on the electoral register: this reduces your rating. Contact Transunion if you disagree.
3. I've been on the register for decades, and for the last few years at the same address. Get a letter from the Council confirming. Go to Transunion site, click on "Raise a complaint".
4. Transunion ask for details, and then say "Sorry, we haven't been able to verify and validate your identity and can't provide your credit report...some of the most common reasons are [various things that don't apply and]...not being on the Electoral Register." FFS! I didn't ask for a credit report, I asked to have a complaint considered.
5. OK, email Transunion to point out the Catch-22. Get an automated response - we are very busy, might take 14 days or longer to reply.
6. Go back to Credit Karma, send them the Council letter confirming I've been on the register for many years.
7. Credit Karma say "We understand the problem. To hlep us resolve it, we need you to send us a credit report from TransUnion."

Now what? Between them they are causing me potential harm (failure to buy the house), purely because they incorrectly decided to change my details. Is there an Ombudsman covering this?

@NickPalmer

A credit check should cost you a statutory maximum of £2 - from Experian, TransUnion or Equifax. You could get one from all 3. Don't let them charge you more than £2.

I've never heard of Credit Karma. They seems to be a middle-man between you and the real agencies. Why have you got involved with these guys?

Lenders doing credit checks when you apply for a loan or mortgage are using one (or more) of the big three. So go direct to them.

Credit Karma used to be Noddle.

It's basically a decent monitoring service, without the others' need to charge a fee.

They make their money from referrals for credit products. So a bit like MSE in that respect.

MattW

Early evening, so a belly-laugh I had not seen before.

When the weather isn't bad enough for a scoop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tocuyJ1Fu7U

rottenborough

Stocky said:

NickPalmer said:

For light relief of the eye-rolling sort, a credit rating saga. I'm trying to help buy a house for a relative, and need to show my credit rating, which is normally very good.

1. Credit Karma writies: your rating has dropped sharply. Read our report to find out why.
2. Report says: you are not now on the electoral register: this reduces your rating. Contact Transunion if you disagree.
3. I've been on the register for decades, and for the last few years at the same address. Get a letter from the Council confirming. Go to Transunion site, click on "Raise a complaint".
4. Transunion ask for details, and then say "Sorry, we haven't been able to verify and validate your identity and can't provide your credit report...some of the most common reasons are [various things that don't apply and]...not being on the Electoral Register." FFS! I didn't ask for a credit report, I asked to have a complaint considered.
5. OK, email Transunion to point out the Catch-22. Get an automated response - we are very busy, might take 14 days or longer to reply.
6. Go back to Credit Karma, send them the Council letter confirming I've been on the register for many years.
7. Credit Karma say "We understand the problem. To hlep us resolve it, we need you to send us a credit report from TransUnion."

Now what? Between them they are causing me potential harm (failure to buy the house), purely because they incorrectly decided to change my details. Is there an Ombudsman covering this?

@NickPalmer

A credit check should cost you a statutory maximum of £2 - from Experian, TransUnion or Equifax. You could get one from all 3. Don't let them charge you more than £2.

I've never heard of Credit Karma. They seems to be a middle-man between you and the real agencies. Why have you got involved with these guys?

Lenders doing credit checks when you apply for a loan or mortgage are using one (or more) of the big three. So go direct to them.

"Report says: you are not now on the electoral register" - @NickPalmer

Aren't you actually an actual councillor?

How could that happen if you are not on the roll?

Leon

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

There was definitely a cover-up. It was probably a lab leak.


BREAKING: my @VanityFair investigation into @EcoHealthNYC, @NIAIDNews transparency and debate over #COVID19 origins is live. Vanity Fair obtained over 100,000 internal EcoHealth Alliance documents including meeting minutes, internal emails, reports. vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/t… /1

https://twitter.com/katherineeban/status/1509578742577958923?s=21&t=_SNJM-c2cEPbdQpnxSn9fA

Ah, I see we are back to trusting journalists on Covid. There may have been a cover-up but that does not mean there was a lab leak.

Read the article. It is incontestable there was a cover up.

As for trusting journalists, Jeez. Everyone with an allergy to the lab leak hypothesis rushed to believe the recent bilge in the NYT pointing back to the market. Co-Author? The same Andersen who is now clearly implicated in the ongoing cover-up, as the article proves

And as for lab leak, this dangerous new bat coronavirus appeared in the only city in the world with an (unsafe) bio-lab investigating new bat coronaviruses so as to make them more dangerous

At some point, denying the obvious becomes embarrassingly futile

NickyBreakspear

rottenborough said:

Stocky said:

NickPalmer said:

For light relief of the eye-rolling sort, a credit rating saga. I'm trying to help buy a house for a relative, and need to show my credit rating, which is normally very good.

1. Credit Karma writies: your rating has dropped sharply. Read our report to find out why.
2. Report says: you are not now on the electoral register: this reduces your rating. Contact Transunion if you disagree.
3. I've been on the register for decades, and for the last few years at the same address. Get a letter from the Council confirming. Go to Transunion site, click on "Raise a complaint".
4. Transunion ask for details, and then say "Sorry, we haven't been able to verify and validate your identity and can't provide your credit report...some of the most common reasons are [various things that don't apply and]...not being on the Electoral Register." FFS! I didn't ask for a credit report, I asked to have a complaint considered.
5. OK, email Transunion to point out the Catch-22. Get an automated response - we are very busy, might take 14 days or longer to reply.
6. Go back to Credit Karma, send them the Council letter confirming I've been on the register for many years.
7. Credit Karma say "We understand the problem. To hlep us resolve it, we need you to send us a credit report from TransUnion."

Now what? Between them they are causing me potential harm (failure to buy the house), purely because they incorrectly decided to change my details. Is there an Ombudsman covering this?

@NickPalmer

A credit check should cost you a statutory maximum of £2 - from Experian, TransUnion or Equifax. You could get one from all 3. Don't let them charge you more than £2.

I've never heard of Credit Karma. They seems to be a middle-man between you and the real agencies. Why have you got involved with these guys?

Lenders doing credit checks when you apply for a loan or mortgage are using one (or more) of the big three. So go direct to them.

"Report says: you are not now on the electoral register" - @NickPalmer

Aren't you actually an actual councillor?

How could that happen if you are not on the roll?

Could it be a spelling difference, or something similar, on the electoral register?

DecrepiterJohnL

Leon said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

There was definitely a cover-up. It was probably a lab leak.


BREAKING: my @VanityFair investigation into @EcoHealthNYC, @NIAIDNews transparency and debate over #COVID19 origins is live. Vanity Fair obtained over 100,000 internal EcoHealth Alliance documents including meeting minutes, internal emails, reports. vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/t… /1

https://twitter.com/katherineeban/status/1509578742577958923?s=21&t=_SNJM-c2cEPbdQpnxSn9fA

Ah, I see we are back to trusting journalists on Covid. There may have been a cover-up but that does not mean there was a lab leak.

Read the article. It is incontestable there was a cover up.

As for trusting journalists, Jeez. Everyone with an allergy to the lab leak hypothesis rushed to believe the recent bilge in the NYT pointing back to the market. Co-Author? The same Andersen who is now clearly implicated in the ongoing cover-up, as the article proves

And as for lab leak, this dangerous new bat coronavirus appeared in the only city in the world with an (unsafe) bio-lab investigating new bat coronaviruses so as to make them more dangerous

At some point, denying the obvious becomes embarrassingly futile

Someone here a couple of weeks ago posted something suggesting the pendulum was swinging back to the wet market, based on dna sequencing. I'm no expert though. But since the pb massive has spent the past two years complaining about journalistic coverage of all aspects of the pandemic, I'm content to wait for the scientists. We saw something similar with Climategate where hacks misunderstood the term "mathematical trick".

Cyclefree

kinabalu said:

@Cyclefree

Ok, read that, thanks vm. Illuminating. It confirms something I've suspected - that in response to these monomaniac "TRAs" you have ended up radicalized and arguing a more hardline (and imo not completely rational) position than you otherwise would have been.

And the opposite happens too, I think. The 2 sides are stoking up each other.

Cheers and beers for now anyway.

No. I have always been against self-ID from the moment Maria Miller first suggested it several years ago. I have always been in favour of men respecting womens' boundaries.This is not either a radical or irrational position.

Pretty much all I have learnt about the trans issue has been from (a) a member of my family and (b) a male to female transgender friend, who takes my view on this rather than yours. She utterly loathes the TRAs and thinks they have done her cause a load of harm. Oh and some lesbian friends.

What has radicalised me is the level of violence and hatred and contempt shown for women: some things have got better during my lifetime but much has not and some has got worse. That plus what has been revealed about the levels of child abuse over decades in so very many institutions. Or look at how maternity services over years have been treated.

And there is a level of complacency and dismissal of it among far too many men, even otherwise very nice men (like you). So I make it my business to argue the female, feminist case after a lifetime's experience of having to endure far too much patronising condescension from inadequate men who - frankly - can kiss my arse.

But I will say that I very much enjoy my debates with you which help me think and refine and test my views, as all good debate does.

So cheers to you too.

And slainte!

BigRich

Leon said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

There was definitely a cover-up. It was probably a lab leak.


BREAKING: my @VanityFair investigation into @EcoHealthNYC, @NIAIDNews transparency and debate over #COVID19 origins is live. Vanity Fair obtained over 100,000 internal EcoHealth Alliance documents including meeting minutes, internal emails, reports. vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/t… /1

https://twitter.com/katherineeban/status/1509578742577958923?s=21&t=_SNJM-c2cEPbdQpnxSn9fA

Ah, I see we are back to trusting journalists on Covid. There may have been a cover-up but that does not mean there was a lab leak.

Read the article. It is incontestable there was a cover up.

As for trusting journalists, Jeez. Everyone with an allergy to the lab leak hypothesis rushed to believe the recent bilge in the NYT pointing back to the market. Co-Author? The same Andersen who is now clearly implicated in the ongoing cover-up, as the article proves

And as for lab leak, this dangerous new bat coronavirus appeared in the only city in the world with an (unsafe) bio-lab investigating new bat coronaviruses so as to make them more dangerous

At some point, denying the obvious becomes embarrassingly futile

I don't know if there was or was not a lob leek, form the what has been presented including by @Leon it does look more likely than not, but as I am not an expert I will refrain form committing further.

What really Really really annoys me, Upsets me, is the way that any talk about the possibility was shut down so actively. I get that china would do that, that's what all authoritarian states do, but in the west, that should not have happened. it was by many people in may organisations, but the stand out one was Facebook, banning all such stories, as well as multiple other publications, even in some cases, putting bogus articles supposedly debunking, including but not limited to the Lancet, publishing and article form a chap who is paid by the Chines state but calming not to have any conflict of interest.

it probably needs phycologists to fully unpack what happened, but I think part of it was an attitudes of Trump is taking about a lab leek, and if people believe that it somehow might take trump of the hook for this, so we must debunk it. combined with a powerful and reinforced effort from Chinas publicity machine.

Whatever the reason its sad.

Taz

This really is more IDS than Churchill

https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1509575284911136774?s=21&t=z-ZqtHYUWFkCf0FKWxWFxg

Nigelb

After the failure,Russian troops will move to the Donbas as if it was an initial plan. It’ll be thought here. Donetsk governor,Pavlo Kyrylenko, knows that.He stresses: the territory is strategic,but people should be protected first of all,as “we don’t fight for graves of heroes”
https://twitter.com/ngumenyuk/status/1509599723870736397

Leon

BigRich said:

Leon said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

There was definitely a cover-up. It was probably a lab leak.


BREAKING: my @VanityFair investigation into @EcoHealthNYC, @NIAIDNews transparency and debate over #COVID19 origins is live. Vanity Fair obtained over 100,000 internal EcoHealth Alliance documents including meeting minutes, internal emails, reports. vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/t… /1

https://twitter.com/katherineeban/status/1509578742577958923?s=21&t=_SNJM-c2cEPbdQpnxSn9fA

Ah, I see we are back to trusting journalists on Covid. There may have been a cover-up but that does not mean there was a lab leak.

Read the article. It is incontestable there was a cover up.

As for trusting journalists, Jeez. Everyone with an allergy to the lab leak hypothesis rushed to believe the recent bilge in the NYT pointing back to the market. Co-Author? The same Andersen who is now clearly implicated in the ongoing cover-up, as the article proves

And as for lab leak, this dangerous new bat coronavirus appeared in the only city in the world with an (unsafe) bio-lab investigating new bat coronaviruses so as to make them more dangerous

At some point, denying the obvious becomes embarrassingly futile

I don't know if there was or was not a lob leek, form the what has been presented including by @Leon it does look more likely than not, but as I am not an expert I will refrain form committing further.

What really Really really annoys me, Upsets me, is the way that any talk about the possibility was shut down so actively. I get that china would do that, that's what all authoritarian states do, but in the west, that should not have happened. it was by many people in may organisations, but the stand out one was Facebook, banning all such stories, as well as multiple other publications, even in some cases, putting bogus articles supposedly debunking, including but not limited to the Lancet, publishing and article form a chap who is paid by the Chines state but calming not to have any conflict of interest.

it probably needs phycologists to fully unpack what happened, but I think part of it was an attitudes of Trump is taking about a lab leek, and if people believe that it somehow might take trump of the hook for this, so we must debunk it. combined with a powerful and reinforced effort from Chinas publicity machine.

Whatever the reason its sad.

Indeed. We will probably never know 100% for sure

I’m 95% convinced it came from the lab. Occam’s razor alone is enough to get you that far

I don’t understand why some people are still so determined that lab leak is “impossible”. I mean, I get why some virologists might hate the lab leak theory, it’s a terrible stain on their science, but ordinary non scientific people also act like scalded cats when faced with the accumulating evidence

Is it still some fear of Trump? Peculiar

rottenborough

Taz said:

This really is more IDS than Churchill

https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1509575284911136774?s=21&t=z-ZqtHYUWFkCf0FKWxWFxg

The branding looks very tired.

Cyclefree

Stereodog said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT
@kinabalu
"You argue that trans women who haven't had surgery should be excluded from women's toilets & changing rooms.

Questions on this if I may.

Would this be policed & if so how?

The transition process (as is) mandates living in your target gender for a time. If M/F, a key part of this is being able to navigate female spaces. How can you achieve this if you're prohibited from using them?"

My answer-

The transition process does not mandate how you must live as your acquired gender so there is no requirement to show that you are using loos etc.

But the answers are: trust - challenge - expectations.

Let me clarify. Before the TRAs started demanding access as of right for any man who said he was a woman, there was a high degree of trust & expectations around women only spaces. People - both men & women - understood who they were for & why. If the wrong person came in, they could expect to be challenged & had no defence.

Now they were not perfect. Doubtless transsexuals did use them & women might have been ok with that because it was obvious what they were & that this was a one off. And also that these were genuine. People understood that there were boundaries & why & respected them.

But the demands of TRAs to have no boundaries, to breach them, to demand as of right, to regard the idea of womens consent as somehow offensive has eroded that trust. So rather than have empathy for a transgender man seeking to transition, the reaction has been - we can't trust men to respect our need for boundaries so no, none of you can come in. The TRAs have done the cause of transgender people great harm because they have attacked the very idea of boundaries & consent.

Checking peoples' genitals is absurd & was not needed before because women could trust men not breach the boundaries & know they did not belong in womens loos. And because women could rely on that they were ok to allow a few genuine transgender women in.

So now we have to rebuild that. Which is why I think you have to say clearly the expectation is that men do not seek to go into female spaces unless invited by women. If challenged, if women feel uncomfortable, they leave. And over time, then women can get comfortable with allowing those who are genuinely dysphoric to use women-only spaces by invitation.

But it has to start with men understanding the need for female boundaries & not seeking to demolish them or breach them. And I am afraid when I see the arguments and aggression from TRAs and attacks on women etc I see those who refuse to understand why women need boundaries, why it matters to them & why "no" means "no". I see - in short - precisely the sort of male entitlement & aggression which can lead to abuse.

And that is why I do not want self-ID. I personally do not mind a genuine transwoman using a female loo. But if I cannot be certain that she is genuine - as I can't be with self-ID - then I don't want to take the risk & will say no to any man at all.

Your views are entirely sensible but how can anyone possibly know how many pre operative trans women are already using female loos without incident? My problem with the trans debate is that both sides dig in on scenarios which are if not hypothetical then vanishingly rare. How many women would discriminate against a trans women using a female toilet? How many trans women use female toilets for nefarious purposes? I worked on a parliamentary report on sexual identity and it was impossible because each side giving evidence immediately dug into the most extreme version of their argument.

You can probably know how many people have had a medical diagnosis and how many have not had surgery and so have a rough idea of many pre-op people there are.

But I agree that there is a toxicity to the debate which is distinctly unhelpful. In part it is because people tried to prevent any debate and so finally when one is held people are much crosser than they would otherwise have been. The "no debate" approach by TRA charities is quite wrong. There is no such thing as "no debate" in politics. That is why I have tried to suggest some solutions - not that anyone is going to listen to me.

What is needed is some trust and empathy. And proper research into the risks and realities, none of which is happening because researchers are being scared off. It is difficult to have that if accusations of phobia and "c**t" and "Terf" and "men in dresses" and "racists" and "bigots" and "genocide" etc are hurled about.

mickydroy

Stuartinromford said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

NickPalmer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Apologies if already mentioned:

Survation 28-30 Mar

Lab 42 (nc)
Con 35 (nc)
LD 9
SNP 4
Grn 3
Ref 2

Wow! Outlier? Or what?

Just to improve your evening further Nick, it's a UK poll including NI, so on the usual GB basis the Lab percentage would be up at 43%.

It may be an outlier. But on the other hand, Partygate has been back in the news to remind everyone just how much of a sleezebag Johnson is.

If the true lead is Lab +4, then Lab +1 and Lab +7 are both fairly reasonably within the edge of the measurement range.

And if the needle has settled at Lab +4, it's a similar pattern to other bad news for the government events.

A big sudden swing against the government when the scandal breaks. Then a bounce back, but not a complete one- some voters are lost long-term.

If this keeps happening, there's a problem that will add up over a couple more years

Wait till the right wing press start churning out their garbage 6 months out from the election, then see what the polls say

williamglenn

Taz said:

This really is more IDS than Churchill

https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1509575284911136774

IDS had more memorable lines.

ydoethur

rottenborough said:

Taz said:

This really is more IDS than Churchill

https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1509575284911136774?s=21&t=z-ZqtHYUWFkCf0FKWxWFxg

The branding looks very tired.

Wasn't 'Because Britain Deserves Better' one of Blair's lines in 1997?

https://www.fes.de/fulltext/ialhi/90057/90057001.htm

Leon

BigRich said:

Leon said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

There was definitely a cover-up. It was probably a lab leak.


BREAKING: my @VanityFair investigation into @EcoHealthNYC, @NIAIDNews transparency and debate over #COVID19 origins is live. Vanity Fair obtained over 100,000 internal EcoHealth Alliance documents including meeting minutes, internal emails, reports. vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/t… /1

https://twitter.com/katherineeban/status/1509578742577958923?s=21&t=_SNJM-c2cEPbdQpnxSn9fA

Ah, I see we are back to trusting journalists on Covid. There may have been a cover-up but that does not mean there was a lab leak.

Read the article. It is incontestable there was a cover up.

As for trusting journalists, Jeez. Everyone with an allergy to the lab leak hypothesis rushed to believe the recent bilge in the NYT pointing back to the market. Co-Author? The same Andersen who is now clearly implicated in the ongoing cover-up, as the article proves

And as for lab leak, this dangerous new bat coronavirus appeared in the only city in the world with an (unsafe) bio-lab investigating new bat coronaviruses so as to make them more dangerous

At some point, denying the obvious becomes embarrassingly futile

I don't know if there was or was not a lob leek, form the what has been presented including by @Leon it does look more likely than not, but as I am not an expert I will refrain form committing further.

What really Really really annoys me, Upsets me, is the way that any talk about the possibility was shut down so actively. I get that china would do that, that's what all authoritarian states do, but in the west, that should not have happened. it was by many people in may organisations, but the stand out one was Facebook, banning all such stories, as well as multiple other publications, even in some cases, putting bogus articles supposedly debunking, including but not limited to the Lancet, publishing and article form a chap who is paid by the Chines state but calming not to have any conflict of interest.

it probably needs phycologists to fully unpack what happened, but I think part of it was an attitudes of Trump is taking about a lab leek, and if people believe that it somehow might take trump of the hook for this, so we must debunk it. combined with a powerful and reinforced effort from Chinas publicity machine.

Whatever the reason its sad.

One other reason for the cover-up (as diligently explained in that excellent article): it’s not just China in the dock here. America funded much of the craziest gain-of-function research (and british science joined in with the attempt to silence the debate)

I mean, at one point they were fucking around with viruses that have a fatality rate of 35%

Imagine if one of those had *escaped* from
The Wuhan Centre for Pandemic Spreading

ydoethur

williamglenn said:

Taz said:

This really is more IDS than Churchill

https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1509575284911136774

IDS had more memorable lines.

Has Starmer said something about quiet men yet?

Because that was distinctly memorable. For all the wrong reasons, but still memorable. Twenty years later and we're still talking about it.

Cyclefree

Nigelb said:

Stuartinromford said:

Meanwhile, whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, this justification is balls, isn't it?

Jaw-dropping government u-turn on banning conversion therapy, revealed by @PaulBrandITV. Here is odd justification: “Given unprecedented circumstances of major pressures on cost of living and the crisis in Ukraine, there is an urgent need to rationalise our legislative programme”

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1509575098734465034?t=qCrRMQIXC2BOHt3FQDK7WQ&s=19

Who was it who said “I think [conversion therapy is] absolutely abhorrent…and we will bring forward plans to ban it” ?

There are 2 types:
(1) the let's cure gays which is harmful and ought to be banned and
(2) the let's affirm trans children without exploring whether they really are trans and can end up harming kids with other issues and/or seeking to convert to trans kids who really are gay. This needs to wait the final report of the Cass Review. The Interim Report already shows why automatic affirmation is not a good idea.

turbotubbs

Leon said:

BigRich said:

Leon said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

There was definitely a cover-up. It was probably a lab leak.


BREAKING: my @VanityFair investigation into @EcoHealthNYC, @NIAIDNews transparency and debate over #COVID19 origins is live. Vanity Fair obtained over 100,000 internal EcoHealth Alliance documents including meeting minutes, internal emails, reports. vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/t… /1

https://twitter.com/katherineeban/status/1509578742577958923?s=21&t=_SNJM-c2cEPbdQpnxSn9fA

Ah, I see we are back to trusting journalists on Covid. There may have been a cover-up but that does not mean there was a lab leak.

Read the article. It is incontestable there was a cover up.

As for trusting journalists, Jeez. Everyone with an allergy to the lab leak hypothesis rushed to believe the recent bilge in the NYT pointing back to the market. Co-Author? The same Andersen who is now clearly implicated in the ongoing cover-up, as the article proves

And as for lab leak, this dangerous new bat coronavirus appeared in the only city in the world with an (unsafe) bio-lab investigating new bat coronaviruses so as to make them more dangerous

At some point, denying the obvious becomes embarrassingly futile

I don't know if there was or was not a lob leek, form the what has been presented including by @Leon it does look more likely than not, but as I am not an expert I will refrain form committing further.

What really Really really annoys me, Upsets me, is the way that any talk about the possibility was shut down so actively. I get that china would do that, that's what all authoritarian states do, but in the west, that should not have happened. it was by many people in may organisations, but the stand out one was Facebook, banning all such stories, as well as multiple other publications, even in some cases, putting bogus articles supposedly debunking, including but not limited to the Lancet, publishing and article form a chap who is paid by the Chines state but calming not to have any conflict of interest.

it probably needs phycologists to fully unpack what happened, but I think part of it was an attitudes of Trump is taking about a lab leek, and if people believe that it somehow might take trump of the hook for this, so we must debunk it. combined with a powerful and reinforced effort from Chinas publicity machine.

Whatever the reason its sad.

Indeed. We will probably never know 100% for sure

I’m 95% convinced it came from the lab. Occam’s razor alone is enough to get you that far

I don’t understand why some people are still so determined that lab leak is “impossible”. I mean, I get why some virologists might hate the lab leak theory, it’s a terrible stain on their science, but ordinary non scientific people also act like scalded cats when faced with the accumulating evidence

Is it still some fear of Trump? Peculiar

I definitely agree that we will never know for certain. But your 95% lab leak holds a second question. Which kind of lab leak? Just something that they had found in bats escaping the precautions? Or more sinister, something that had been engineered and then escaped? I would suspect the former, especially with my insight into safety in science facilities (it’s rarely as good as it should be. I know some horror stories out of Porton Down that I can only divulge at a pb meet). But it’s not impossible that someone has done something truly stupid and dangerous and it’s leaked.
My instinct is always cock up over conspiracy. The frantic cover up by Fauci et al is the same as any big organisation covering up in the face of scrutiny, such as NHS trusts with excessive deaths in their maternity unit.

darkage

Perhaps, in the aftermath of this crisis, we can learn something from the Ukrainians. For decades now, we’ve been fighting a culture war between liberal values on the one hand and muscular forms of patriotism on the other. The Ukrainians are showing us a way to have both. As soon as the attacks began, they overcame their many political divisions, which are no less bitter than ours, and they picked up weapons to fight for their sovereignty and their democracy. They demonstrated that it is possible to be a patriot and a believer in an open society, that a democracy can be stronger and fiercer than its opponents. Precisely because there is no liberal world order, no norms and no rules, we must fight ferociously for the values and the hopes of liberalism if we want our open societies to continue to exist.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/autocracy-could-destroy-democracy-russia-ukraine/629363/