Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

DeSantis edges Trump out to become new WH2024 favourite – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,356
    HYUFD said:

    Starmer considers scrapping proposed tax rise on the top 5% if Labour win the next general election and also scrapping plans to abolish tuition fees

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1541728809602498560?s=20&t=WjC_lppMBT6_wYXJllQfig

    So either dropping any policies he has or getting serious about preparing for government. Pays your money and makes your choice.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,088
    kjh said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    The key factors contributing to good health and happiness are well known. What is remarkable is that such a large proportion of humanity completely ignores the research.

    Buy a dog.
    Go easy on the booze.
    No drugs.
    Routine, daily exercise.
    Being kind to others.
    Plenty of “down-time”, including generous convalescence periods after illness.
    Inter-generational households.
    Intimacy and touching.
    Feeling belonging to a larger group.

    It ain’t rocket science.
    I'd also say: "Plenty of clown time"

    Have a laugh, even if you are by yourself. Play a comedy show, tell an awful joke to your partner or children.

    Laughter really is the best medicine.
    You mean Boris in charge is actually good for us all.
    There are exceptions ... ;)
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,569
    kinabalu said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.
    I didn't see any inference in the BBC report that the trans person attended for ungenuine reasons. And apparently the charity is clear in its materials that it's trans inclusive.
    No, I'm just taking that "the person presented as typically male, wearing male clothing" quote and raising the possibility. Anyone can of course dress how they like, but in my experience most trans women tend to dress in a fairly 'feminine' way (don't ask me to define 'feminine'!). Might be very unfair on the trans person who attended. I can however imagine a class of male weirdo who would get kicks from rocking up at a session like this to intimidate or simply from hearing the stories of experiences of abuse.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959
    Australia census

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61961744

    I honestly wouldn't have known India immigration was a huge driver in Australia. I though it was UK / NZ / China.

    Did have to laugh at "Millennials now have the numbers"...

    Baby Boomers - those born between 1946 and 1965 - have previously been the country's largest generation. Now Millennials - born between 1981 and 1995 - have caught up.

    No shit sherlock that's how time and people aging works.
  • kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.

    Charities have to comply with the law. So they are not free to get it wrong if this means breaching equality or other laws.

    What I don't understand is why it could not provide group sessions which includes TW and ones which are single sex only (the latter are permitted). That way everyone is catered for, with no-one's rights trampled on or ignored and the needs of rape victims properly cared for.
    I don't see why they couldn't, but I don't see any reason they're obliged to, either.

    Everything which isn't forbidden is allowed, not everything that isn't forbidden is compulsory.

    I agree with Selebian, the charity got it wrong, but they should be entitled to get it wrong, as they shouldn't be compelled to take actions they don't want to take, unless there's a reason it is required. My only regret is if they charity wins the case, which they probably should, then that will be misportrayed as that the charity got it right, rather than the charity did the wrong but legal thing.
    Got it wrong in what way?
    A rape victim who wants a female sex only counselling group should be able to speak to a female sex only counselling group.

    I don't know of anything in law that requires charities to provide that though, which is why I think the case should be lost. Its permitted to do that, and would be the right thing to do morally, but I don't see why it is against the law not to offer that service.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    Sounds like the driving factor is that Mormons don't drink or smoke. I think I'll just give those up by choice if I want to live ten years longer, rather than believe the ramblings of Joseph Smith.
    No things like coke (the sugary stuff not the white powder) either.

    I know Mormons don't just live in Utah, but its the epicentre. I seemed to remember reading somewhere the parts of Salt Lake City are among the wealthiest, best educated etc etc etc in the whole of US, but also incredibly high rates of suicide. Having been to Utah a number of times, its a very odd place, always got the feeling of the friendliness was about recruiting new blood.
    Mittens Romney is of course Mormon.
    The well dressed, polite talk to me about faith recruitment stuff is of course all polish.
    They are probably, surprisingly perhaps, more liberal than some of the republican states on abortion now as they only stand against it for convenience or birth control purposes

    There is an LDS church in Norwich.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,459

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    Sounds like the driving factor is that Mormons don't drink or smoke. I think I'll just give those up by choice if I want to live ten years longer, rather than believe the ramblings of Joseph Smith.
    I will stick with the bevvy and have 5 years
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,758

    Sandpit said:

    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast.

    He’s spent the last 35 years being an idiot.

    For some context, it was a Brazilian podcast and he was speaking Portuguese, where presumably that word doesn’t quite have the same offensiveness as in English.

    Also don’t forget that he’s Max Verstappen’s father-in-law.
    From what I understand the exact Portuguese word he used isn't quite the US N word, however he is on a public podcast talking about a black man and he is well travelled / well versed in the world to know what he is doing. Bit like Suarez name calling Erva.
    Here's your comment translated to portugese

    Pelo que entendi, a palavra exata em português que ele usou não é bem a palavra N dos EUA, porém ele está em um podcast público falando sobre um homem negro e é bem viajado / bem versado no mundo para saber o que está fazendo. Um pouco como Suárez xingando Erva.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,470
    edited June 28
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    I reckon it's the underwear.
    Check out Mormon Porn (er, from behind a VPN). A flourishing sub-genre which riffs on the ‘spiritual undergarments’ theme
    Indeed. They seem to follow much of the list of healthy life style.
    Regular exertion. Touching and intimacy. Membership of a larger group. Intergenerational living. Being kind to others. Etc
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,569
    IshmaelZ said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    It sounds nonsense to me

    Fill in the blank: If you misplace a decimal point your result is out by a factor of precisely ***?
    Big CI. OR of three is less crazy (though also big). OR of 32 (on the other end) nuts. This was also from the combined sample, the UK sample smaller OR. I also dislike when only the OR of interest is presented - I want to see the whole table to assess whether there's anything odd going on with the other included variables.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Sandpit said:

    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast.

    He’s spent the last 35 years being an idiot.

    For some context, it was a Brazilian podcast and he was speaking Portuguese, where presumably that word doesn’t quite have the same offensiveness as in English.

    Also don’t forget that he’s Max Verstappen’s father-in-law.
    I have a vague recollection of something similar happening in football, though I don't recall whether Portuguese was the language in question. Led to a touchline scuffle and the game being abandoned, perhaps?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,974

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P<.01) after controlling for numerous demographic, baseline health, behavioral, social, and economic variables.

    “A recent meta-analysis44 of 42 studies of nearly 126,000 persons found that highly religious persons had a 29% higher odds of survival compared with less religious persons (odds ratio [OR],1.29 [95% CI, 1.20–1.39]). The authors could not attribute the association to confounding variables or to publication bias…”

    And so on, HEED THE WORD OF THE LORD, HEATHEN SCUM



    https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)62799-7/fulltext
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    I reckon it's the underwear.
    Check out Mormon Porn (er, from behind a VPN). A flourishing sub-genre which riffs on the ‘spiritual undergarments’ theme
    Indeed. They seem to follow much of the list of healthy life style.
    Regular exertion. Touching and intimacy. Belonging to a larger group. Intergenerational living. Etc
    They are also furious preppers. I knew a mormon from Illinois, always had 6 months tinned goods stored
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427
    Selebian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.

    Charities have to comply with the law. So they are not free to get it wrong if this means breaching equality or other laws.

    What I don't understand is why it could not provide group sessions which includes TW and ones which are single sex only (the latter are permitted). That way everyone is catered for, with no-one's rights trampled on or ignored and the needs of rape victims properly cared for.
    Indeed. My (limited) understanding of the law is that it would be perfectly legal to have a single sex group here. But I don't think it is (nor should be) unlawful for the charity to choose not to provide a single sex group. Personally, I think the charity should have provided a single sex group (in my opinion they got this wrong, but in a perfectly legal way) but the recourse is for people not to use them and not to fund them if, like me, they feel the charity got this wrong.
    Also its not really a charity is it as far as I could see its a tax payer funded thing. Frankly describing any body that gets most of its funding from the tax payer, in this case via the nhs and ministry of justice. Is not a charity but a governement body just as much as something such as ofsted
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,328
    Cyclefree said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.

    Charities have to comply with the law. So they are not free to get it wrong if this means breaching equality or other laws.

    What I don't understand is why it could not provide group sessions which includes TW and ones which are single sex only (the latter are permitted). That way everyone is catered for, with no-one's rights trampled on or ignored and the needs of rape victims properly cared for.
    If the charity loses in court it'll mean they and all others in this space will be effectively forced to do that for fear of legal jeopardy - is my take. So a pretty important case.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,785

    Sandpit said:

    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast.

    He’s spent the last 35 years being an idiot.

    For some context, it was a Brazilian podcast and he was speaking Portuguese, where presumably that word doesn’t quite have the same offensiveness as in English.

    Also don’t forget that he’s Max Verstappen’s father-in-law.
    From what I understand the exact Portuguese word he used isn't quite the US N word, however he is on a public podcast talking about a black man and he is well travelled / well versed in the world to know what he is doing. Bit like Suarez name calling Erva.
    Who can forget that night the Liverpool team warmed up wearing Suarez t shirts? Brilliantly judged.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,974
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    I reckon it's the underwear.
    Check out Mormon Porn (er, from behind a VPN). A flourishing sub-genre which riffs on the ‘spiritual undergarments’ theme
    Indeed. They seem to follow much of the list of healthy life style.
    Regular exertion. Touching and intimacy. Membership of a larger group. Intergenerational living. Being kind to others. Etc
    Also “respect for older people”. Especially if they tell you to climb naked on to the desk on all fours
  • If you have to go to Church every single week then you don't actually live longer, it just feels like you do.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,939

    If you have to go to Church every single week then you don't actually live longer, it just feels like you do.

    The old ones are the best
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,785
    Applicant said:

    Sandpit said:

    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast.

    He’s spent the last 35 years being an idiot.

    For some context, it was a Brazilian podcast and he was speaking Portuguese, where presumably that word doesn’t quite have the same offensiveness as in English.

    Also don’t forget that he’s Max Verstappen’s father-in-law.
    I have a vague recollection of something similar happening in football, though I don't recall whether Portuguese was the language in question. Led to a touchline scuffle and the game being abandoned, perhaps?
    PSG. Romanian officials. Can't remember much more.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916

    Sandpit said:

    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast.

    He’s spent the last 35 years being an idiot.

    For some context, it was a Brazilian podcast and he was speaking Portuguese, where presumably that word doesn’t quite have the same offensiveness as in English.

    Also don’t forget that he’s Max Verstappen’s father-in-law.
    From what I understand the exact Portuguese word he used isn't quite the US N word, however he is on a public podcast talking about a black man and he is well travelled / well versed in the world to know what he is doing. Bit like Suarez name calling Erva.
    Yes, he was referring to events at the British Grand Prix last year, where Lewis and Max crashed.
    There would be no reason to refer to the British driver by the colour of his skin, in this context.

    Latest in a very long line of offensive comments from him though.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    That's as may be, but it doesn't help. It seems pretty clear that religious belief goes with ways your brain is hardwired (cf the oddity that epileptic fits are often followed by religious conversion, as with - probably - St Paul). If yours is wired like that bully for you, but if it isn't, this is no more helpful than saying tall right handers have the best life expectancy so become tall and right handed.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    If you have to go to Church every single week then you don't actually live longer, it just feels like you do.

    Thats why the sensibly spiritual takes his faith away from organised phooey
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959
    Applicant said:

    Sandpit said:

    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast.

    He’s spent the last 35 years being an idiot.

    For some context, it was a Brazilian podcast and he was speaking Portuguese, where presumably that word doesn’t quite have the same offensiveness as in English.

    Also don’t forget that he’s Max Verstappen’s father-in-law.
    I have a vague recollection of something similar happening in football, though I don't recall whether Portuguese was the language in question. Led to a touchline scuffle and the game being abandoned, perhaps?
    It was Luis Suarez to Patrice Evra in Spanish (which both can speak).
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,253

    Australia census

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61961744

    I honestly wouldn't have known India immigration was a huge driver in Australia. I though it was UK / NZ / China.

    Did have to laugh at "Millennials now have the numbers"...

    Baby Boomers - those born between 1946 and 1965 - have previously been the country's largest generation. Now Millennials - born between 1981 and 1995 - have caught up.

    No shit sherlock that's how time and people aging works.

    They thought they’d live forever.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,470
    IshmaelZ said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    It sounds nonsense to me

    Fill in the blank: If you misplace a decimal point your result is out by a factor of precisely ***?
    I did caveat my first remark with "if it proves to be true."
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,002
    edited June 28

    No things like coke (the sugary stuff not the white powder) either.

    Perhaps banning sugary carbonated drinks would be a good Brexit-enabled policy that would do something about the obesity problem as well as reducing tooth decay. Only allow Diet Coke to be sold and take the regular version off the shelves.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,328
    edited June 28
    Pulpstar said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reasonable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.
    Charities should be able to either be trans inclusive or be for "born female, currently female". I'd hope if a rape charity that caters exclusively for women born female was sued by a trans woman for excluding her - well I'd be with the charity in that instance too.
    Don't get you.

    Edit: Sorry, I DO get you. Misread. Apols.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959
    edited June 28
    tlg86 said:

    Applicant said:

    Sandpit said:

    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast.

    He’s spent the last 35 years being an idiot.

    For some context, it was a Brazilian podcast and he was speaking Portuguese, where presumably that word doesn’t quite have the same offensiveness as in English.

    Also don’t forget that he’s Max Verstappen’s father-in-law.
    I have a vague recollection of something similar happening in football, though I don't recall whether Portuguese was the language in question. Led to a touchline scuffle and the game being abandoned, perhaps?
    PSG. Romanian officials. Can't remember much more.
    Oh yeah I forgot that one. The assistant ref was asked who was responsible for a foul and something like it was "the black guy", which in Romanian sounds a lot like it was the N word.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,569

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    Self-report is common, though. Linking to health data is expensive and takes a long time (I do it). In this case you'd need to individually consent the participants, unless linkage was part of the original cohort study consents. ELSA is a legitimate study, if analysed properly (big if, of course). I assume the US one is too, but I haven't encountered that one.

    May well be a junk journal, as you say. There are, afterall, plenty of pro-homeopathy journals full of articles 'showing' that homeopathy works.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    edited June 28
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    I'm not sure why "self-reporting they have Parkinson's" is such a deal breaker?

    Not exactly something one would make up or lie about.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,253
    No Mark Cavendish or Julian Alaphilippe at Tour de France for Quick-Step Alpha Vinyl

    Fabio Jakobsen selected as team's sprinter for the race which begins on Friday in Copenhagen

    https://www.cyclingweekly.com/racing/no-mark-cavendish-or-julian-alaphilippe-at-tour-de-france-for-quick-step-alpha-vinyl

    So, no world record for the Isle of Man.

    For connoisseurs of cycle sport, Merckx is a demi-god. Cavendish was just very good.

    Fabio Jakobsen is very lucky to be alive.

    https://www.bicycling.com/racing/a33534540/fabio-jakobsen-tour-of-poland-crash/
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,939
    IshmaelZ said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    It sounds nonsense to me

    Fill in the blank: If you misplace a decimal point your result is out by a factor of precisely ***?
    I couldn't be bothered to check it out but like @IshmaelZ it sounded like nonsense to me also. There are approximately 100,000 people with Parkinson's in the UK. I think a 10 times difference might have been noticed, although I suppose if you are not looking for it. But really 10 times?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,569
    kjh said:

    If you have to go to Church every single week then you don't actually live longer, it just feels like you do.

    The old ones are the best
    Certainly the holiest, if Leon's studies are to be believed.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,470

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    Sounds like the driving factor is that Mormons don't drink or smoke. I think I'll just give those up by choice if I want to live ten years longer, rather than believe the ramblings of Joseph Smith.
    No things like coke (the sugary stuff not the white powder) either.

    I know Mormons don't just live in Utah, but its the epicentre. I seemed to remember reading somewhere the parts of Salt Lake City are among the wealthiest, best educated etc etc etc in the whole of US, but also incredibly high rates of suicide. Having been to Utah a number of times, its a very odd place, always got the feeling of the friendliness was about recruiting new blood.
    Mittens Romney is of course Mormon.
    The well dressed, polite talk to me about faith recruitment stuff is of course all polish.
    They are probably, surprisingly perhaps, more liberal than some of the republican states on abortion now as they only stand against it for convenience or birth control purposes

    There is an LDS church in Norwich.
    There's a huge one in Chorley.
    The Mormons I befriended in Taiwan had an ambition to visit it.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959

    No Mark Cavendish or Julian Alaphilippe at Tour de France for Quick-Step Alpha Vinyl

    Fabio Jakobsen selected as team's sprinter for the race which begins on Friday in Copenhagen

    https://www.cyclingweekly.com/racing/no-mark-cavendish-or-julian-alaphilippe-at-tour-de-france-for-quick-step-alpha-vinyl

    So, no world record for the Isle of Man.

    For connoisseurs of cycle sport, Merckx is a demi-god. Cavendish was just very good.

    Fabio Jakobsen is very lucky to be alive.

    https://www.bicycling.com/racing/a33534540/fabio-jakobsen-tour-of-poland-crash/

    No Alaphilippe, French tv rating just gone down a few million....
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    .

    No things like coke (the sugary stuff not the white powder) either.

    Perhaps banning sugary carbonated drinks would be a good Brexit-enabled policy that would do something about the obesity problem as well as reducing tooth decay. Only allow Diet Coke to be sold and take the regular version off the shelves.
    If they ever come up with a diet soft drink that doesn't taste shit, I would drink it.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,253

    No things like coke (the sugary stuff not the white powder) either.

    Perhaps banning sugary carbonated drinks would be a good Brexit-enabled policy that would do something about the obesity problem as well as reducing tooth decay. Only allow Diet Coke to be sold and take the regular version off the shelves.
    I thought you lot were trying to strike a trade deal with the USA?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,974
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    That's as may be, but it doesn't help. It seems pretty clear that religious belief goes with ways your brain is hardwired (cf the oddity that epileptic fits are often followed by religious conversion, as with - probably - St Paul). If yours is wired like that bully for you, but if it isn't, this is no more helpful than saying tall right handers have the best life expectancy so become tall and right handed.
    But there are routes to faith. I found God on LSD and speed (combined). Tho I would personally recommend high-quality ayahuasca if you want to take the hallucinogenic route - I tried it and REALLY enjoyed my chat with God last Xmas, in Ibiza


    Then there are retreats, fasting, religious pilgrimages, near death experiences, a week on Mount Athos (worked for lifelong atheist Bruce Chatwin)

    Or you could try being lined up in a firing squad only to be spared at the last moment (Dostoevsky), going to an Italian church during an emotional crisis (Stravinsky) or just lying on a bed in a garden on a midsummer’s evening in the Malverns (Auden)
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,844
    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Timing is the preventative here, in that Indy would take a length of time to complete, so the opportunity to stare electoral defeat in the face, see Indy as a solution and complete it would be almost impossible.

    But if Boris could pull it off, I wouldn't entirely rule out such a gamble. He might know he was digging at the bottom of the cliff of his rUK and Tory support, but if a tornado of bullshit could get him through with the indifferent English, he'd be sore tempted by it. Blair won GE 2005 after Iraq. That he would subsequently be remembered as the man who not only.lost, but downright chucked, the Union would be a problem for another day.

    Utter rubbish. The Tory party may be a bit clueless and spineless, but they’d remove him by lunchtime

    I'm not predicting this. The obstacles are massively formidable.

    But to me, if he could do this, get away with it and it advantaged him, he would not demur from it. And the prima facie advantage of an increase of 47 (perhaps more in future) in the Tory majority is not insignificant.

    So, rather than your "he can't and he won't", I think "he would if it helped him, but he couldn't, could he?". And Boris has ways of wriggling through the barriers that I can't even begin to imagine.

    So, could Braverman offer lhelpful egal advice that Indyref can't be resisted, could he offer Indyref after a GE, going into opposition then engineering the electoral maths. Could he do his Brexit whip removal, reselection thing to retain leadership in midst of Tory rebellion? Baby steps.

    In truth, I'm with you in as much as I don't really believe he can, but I worry.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,328

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.

    Charities have to comply with the law. So they are not free to get it wrong if this means breaching equality or other laws.

    What I don't understand is why it could not provide group sessions which includes TW and ones which are single sex only (the latter are permitted). That way everyone is catered for, with no-one's rights trampled on or ignored and the needs of rape victims properly cared for.
    I don't see why they couldn't, but I don't see any reason they're obliged to, either.

    Everything which isn't forbidden is allowed, not everything that isn't forbidden is compulsory.

    I agree with Selebian, the charity got it wrong, but they should be entitled to get it wrong, as they shouldn't be compelled to take actions they don't want to take, unless there's a reason it is required. My only regret is if they charity wins the case, which they probably should, then that will be misportrayed as that the charity got it right, rather than the charity did the wrong but legal thing.
    Got it wrong in what way?
    A rape victim who wants a female sex only counselling group should be able to speak to a female sex only counselling group.

    I don't know of anything in law that requires charities to provide that though, which is why I think the case should be lost. Its permitted to do that, and would be the right thing to do morally, but I don't see why it is against the law not to offer that service.
    Ok, got you, thanks.

    Yes, I think the objective of bringing the case is to force all such charities to offer that trans exclusive option.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959
    edited June 28

    No Mark Cavendish or Julian Alaphilippe at Tour de France for Quick-Step Alpha Vinyl

    Fabio Jakobsen selected as team's sprinter for the race which begins on Friday in Copenhagen

    https://www.cyclingweekly.com/racing/no-mark-cavendish-or-julian-alaphilippe-at-tour-de-france-for-quick-step-alpha-vinyl

    So, no world record for the Isle of Man.

    For connoisseurs of cycle sport, Merckx is a demi-god. Cavendish was just very good.

    Fabio Jakobsen is very lucky to be alive.

    https://www.bicycling.com/racing/a33534540/fabio-jakobsen-tour-of-poland-crash/

    Big fan of the Manx Missile, but does seem totally wrong to compare the two really. One was a GC rider extraordinaire and the other a brilliant sprinter but never going to challenge for anything but the 500m flat dash finishes.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,758
    Looking into Piquet's words, the 'inho' suffix is as damning as anything.

    'inho' is the Portugese suffix for 'little'. Clearly it's colloquially used as either a term of affection or an insult/slur.
    He's not used it as a term of affection for Lewis.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited June 28
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    Sounds like the driving factor is that Mormons don't drink or smoke. I think I'll just give those up by choice if I want to live ten years longer, rather than believe the ramblings of Joseph Smith.
    No things like coke (the sugary stuff not the white powder) either.

    I know Mormons don't just live in Utah, but its the epicentre. I seemed to remember reading somewhere the parts of Salt Lake City are among the wealthiest, best educated etc etc etc in the whole of US, but also incredibly high rates of suicide. Having been to Utah a number of times, its a very odd place, always got the feeling of the friendliness was about recruiting new blood.
    Mittens Romney is of course Mormon.
    The well dressed, polite talk to me about faith recruitment stuff is of course all polish.
    They are probably, surprisingly perhaps, more liberal than some of the republican states on abortion now as they only stand against it for convenience or birth control purposes

    There is an LDS church in Norwich.
    There's a huge one in Chorley.
    The Mormons I befriended in Taiwan had an ambition to visit it.

    Yeah that one is the cathedral effectively for the North, Scotland, Mann, northern ireland and part of the Republic of Ireland (although Limerick weirdly is tied to LDS London)
    Im not sure why we are meant to care about JC's alleged ministry post resurrection in North America
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,569
    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    It sounds nonsense to me

    Fill in the blank: If you misplace a decimal point your result is out by a factor of precisely ***?
    I couldn't be bothered to check it out but like @IshmaelZ it sounded like nonsense to me also. There are approximately 100,000 people with Parkinson's in the UK. I think a 10 times difference might have been noticed, although I suppose if you are not looking for it. But really 10 times?
    One thought, the real eye-catcher includes religious practices in the model. Our (now deceased) neighbour was a regular attendee at the methodist church, but stopped going when he got Parkinsons due to mobility issues. So there's potential confounding there.

    Also, small samples with Parkinsons:
    "Among 9,796 participants in the pooled dataset, 74 cases of incident PD (0.8%) were identified during a median follow-up of 8.1 years (52 cases in ELSA, 22 cases in MIDUS)."
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    I do not want to spend my late life years in the company of God-botherers, ta muchly.

    They're all fucking mad anyway. They hear the Lord talking to them. Individually, personally. I mean, a whole Universe to minister to, of trillions of galaxies each with trillions of stars - and they think God has time for them? Madness.....
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,253
    edited June 28

    No Mark Cavendish or Julian Alaphilippe at Tour de France for Quick-Step Alpha Vinyl

    Fabio Jakobsen selected as team's sprinter for the race which begins on Friday in Copenhagen

    https://www.cyclingweekly.com/racing/no-mark-cavendish-or-julian-alaphilippe-at-tour-de-france-for-quick-step-alpha-vinyl

    So, no world record for the Isle of Man.

    For connoisseurs of cycle sport, Merckx is a demi-god. Cavendish was just very good.

    Fabio Jakobsen is very lucky to be alive.

    https://www.bicycling.com/racing/a33534540/fabio-jakobsen-tour-of-poland-crash/

    No Alaphilippe, French tv rating just gone down a few million....
    He’s stunning to watch, so a big loss to all cycling fans. That crash in Wallonia at Liège–Bastogne–Liège was dreadful. Must have really shaken him. The earlier one in Tuscany at Strade Bianche was also spectacular.

    Birdwatchers talk about the “jizz” of certain species. Some cyclists are like that: you can easily spot them even in a large peloton. Alaphilippe is one of those. Cavendish was the opposite: almost invisible til the last 300m 😉
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,439
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    As compared with a 52% vote on a 72% turnout?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,328
    Dura_Ace said:

    Oh goody, a quasi Trump thread. The PB Trumptons, DuraAce and MrEd, will be licking their lips at another chance to boosterise their hero.

    He's not my hero and I do not align with him on political or philosophical level.

    I do want him to win in 2024 because I think it will be funny. (Pace JJ - secret to longevity)

    Although there may be an element of Zizek style Freudo-Marxist accelerationism to my thinking.
    Well I just assume it's all Zizek style Freudo-Marxist accelerationism with you when it comes to Trump.

    That way we stay mates. :smile:
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,002

    No things like coke (the sugary stuff not the white powder) either.

    Perhaps banning sugary carbonated drinks would be a good Brexit-enabled policy that would do something about the obesity problem as well as reducing tooth decay. Only allow Diet Coke to be sold and take the regular version off the shelves.
    I thought you lot were trying to strike a trade deal with the USA?
    Is the profit margin on Diet Coke that much worse?

    Seriously, I think it's a good policy and would do more good than messing around with sugar taxes.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    That's as may be, but it doesn't help. It seems pretty clear that religious belief goes with ways your brain is hardwired (cf the oddity that epileptic fits are often followed by religious conversion, as with - probably - St Paul). If yours is wired like that bully for you, but if it isn't, this is no more helpful than saying tall right handers have the best life expectancy so become tall and right handed.
    But there are routes to faith. I found God on LSD and speed (combined). Tho I would personally recommend high-quality ayahuasca if you want to take the hallucinogenic route - I tried it and REALLY enjoyed my chat with God last Xmas, in Ibiza


    Then there are retreats, fasting, religious pilgrimages, near death experiences, a week on Mount Athos (worked for lifelong atheist Bruce Chatwin)

    Or you could try being lined up in a firing squad only to be spared at the last moment (Dostoevsky), going to an Italian church during an emotional crisis (Stravinsky) or just lying on a bed in a garden on a midsummer’s evening in the Malverns (Auden)
    I can only do straight DMT (the MAOI element in ayahuasca would kill me cos reasons) and it's too transient a thing to draw conclusions about anything
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959
    On the day that “noisy” protest becomes unlawful under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, at least 20 police officers have just surrounded anti-Brexit protestor Steve Bray outside the Houses of Parliament and seized his loud speaker.

    https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1541750591822651393?s=20&t=m5rSHaS8FHyoh3oAdd6fhQ
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    That's as may be, but it doesn't help. It seems pretty clear that religious belief goes with ways your brain is hardwired (cf the oddity that epileptic fits are often followed by religious conversion, as with - probably - St Paul). If yours is wired like that bully for you, but if it isn't, this is no more helpful than saying tall right handers have the best life expectancy so become tall and right handed.
    But there are routes to faith. I found God on LSD and speed (combined). Tho I would personally recommend high-quality ayahuasca if you want to take the hallucinogenic route - I tried it and REALLY enjoyed my chat with God last Xmas, in Ibiza


    Then there are retreats, fasting, religious pilgrimages, near death experiences, a week on Mount Athos (worked for lifelong atheist Bruce Chatwin)

    Or you could try being lined up in a firing squad only to be spared at the last moment (Dostoevsky), going to an Italian church during an emotional crisis (Stravinsky) or just lying on a bed in a garden on a midsummer’s evening in the Malverns (Auden)
    The drug connection is always interesting. Behind the veil experience. Somewhat difficult to process with conventional thought processes.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    tlg86 said:

    Applicant said:

    Sandpit said:

    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast.

    He’s spent the last 35 years being an idiot.

    For some context, it was a Brazilian podcast and he was speaking Portuguese, where presumably that word doesn’t quite have the same offensiveness as in English.

    Also don’t forget that he’s Max Verstappen’s father-in-law.
    I have a vague recollection of something similar happening in football, though I don't recall whether Portuguese was the language in question. Led to a touchline scuffle and the game being abandoned, perhaps?
    PSG. Romanian officials. Can't remember much more.
    Oh yeah I forgot that one. The assistant ref was asked who was responsible for a foul and something like it was "the black guy", which in Romanian sounds a lot like it was the N word.
    Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,905
    kjh said:

    If you have to go to Church every single week then you don't actually live longer, it just feels like you do.

    The old ones are the best
    Though if we're talking about churchgoers, it's more that the best ones are the old...

    (Though that could be that God has seen what churchgoers are like, and He wants to put off meeting them properly for a bit.)
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,442
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 335

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    The key factors contributing to good health and happiness are well known. What is remarkable is that such a large proportion of humanity completely ignores the research.

    Buy a dog.
    Go easy on the booze.
    No drugs.
    Routine, daily exercise.
    Being kind to others.
    Plenty of “down-time”, including generous convalescence periods after illness.
    Inter-generational households.
    Intimacy and touching.
    Feeling belonging to a larger group.

    It ain’t rocket science.
    I'd be an alcoholic couch potato without my dog.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,253

    No things like coke (the sugary stuff not the white powder) either.

    Perhaps banning sugary carbonated drinks would be a good Brexit-enabled policy that would do something about the obesity problem as well as reducing tooth decay. Only allow Diet Coke to be sold and take the regular version off the shelves.
    I thought you lot were trying to strike a trade deal with the USA?
    Is the profit margin on Diet Coke that much worse?

    Seriously, I think it's a good policy and would do more good than messing around with sugar taxes.
    Actually I agree with you. For the first time since you became a Brexit fan 😉

    (I detest Diet Coke and like normal Coke, but in the interests of public health, a ban would be tremendous.)

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,442
    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Oh goody, a quasi Trump thread. The PB Trumptons, DuraAce and MrEd, will be licking their lips at another chance to boosterise their hero.

    He's not my hero and I do not align with him on political or philosophical level.

    I do want him to win in 2024 because I think it will be funny. (Pace JJ - secret to longevity)

    Although there may be an element of Zizek style Freudo-Marxist accelerationism to my thinking.
    Well I just assume it's all Zizek style Freudo-Marxist accelerationism with you when it comes to Trump.

    That way we stay mates. :smile:
    I once saw Slavoj Zizek sitting outside Harrods. It felt like some kind of statement on late Capitalism, or possibly he was just having a rest. I regret not getting a selfie.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,621
    Andy_JS said:

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    The crowd in the Western Terrace at Headingley was behaving in exactly the same way it has done for decades.
    Nope, on Sunday, the only day I attended, there was a definite violent edge.

    Saw some actual fist fights.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    That's as may be, but it doesn't help. It seems pretty clear that religious belief goes with ways your brain is hardwired (cf the oddity that epileptic fits are often followed by religious conversion, as with - probably - St Paul). If yours is wired like that bully for you, but if it isn't, this is no more helpful than saying tall right handers have the best life expectancy so become tall and right handed.
    But there are routes to faith. I found God on LSD and speed (combined). Tho I would personally recommend high-quality ayahuasca if you want to take the hallucinogenic route - I tried it and REALLY enjoyed my chat with God last Xmas, in Ibiza


    Then there are retreats, fasting, religious pilgrimages, near death experiences, a week on Mount Athos (worked for lifelong atheist Bruce Chatwin)

    Or you could try being lined up in a firing squad only to be spared at the last moment (Dostoevsky), going to an Italian church during an emotional crisis (Stravinsky) or just lying on a bed in a garden on a midsummer’s evening in the Malverns (Auden)
    The drug connection is always interesting. Behind the veil experience. Somewhat difficult to process with conventional thought processes.
    Yes and no. There's a wacky sort of Mexican sage called salvia divinorum which quite disproportionately makes you think you are an article of wooden furniture, even if no one has told you in advance this is a likely outcome. If one drug can make you think something so weirdly specific, and demonstrably wrong, there's an awful lot to be said for the reductionist case that ayahuasca just gives you a more interesting delusion.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,758
    edited June 28
    Has a team ever been as stacked as Jumbo-Visma whilst the odds on favourite is elsewhere ?

    Can't see past Pogacar personally.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,253
    edited June 28
    Xtrain said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    The key factors contributing to good health and happiness are well known. What is remarkable is that such a large proportion of humanity completely ignores the research.

    Buy a dog.
    Go easy on the booze.
    No drugs.
    Routine, daily exercise.
    Being kind to others.
    Plenty of “down-time”, including generous convalescence periods after illness.
    Inter-generational households.
    Intimacy and touching.
    Feeling belonging to a larger group.

    It ain’t rocket science.
    I'd be an alcoholic couch potato without my dog.
    Listen to R4 start the week. There’s an Edinburgh doctor on. Has a book out called Recovery. Buying a dog was one of his low-hanging fruit healthwise. But whole show very thought provoking.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,328
    Selebian said:

    kinabalu said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.
    I didn't see any inference in the BBC report that the trans person attended for ungenuine reasons. And apparently the charity is clear in its materials that it's trans inclusive.
    No, I'm just taking that "the person presented as typically male, wearing male clothing" quote and raising the possibility. Anyone can of course dress how they like, but in my experience most trans women tend to dress in a fairly 'feminine' way (don't ask me to define 'feminine'!). Might be very unfair on the trans person who attended. I can however imagine a class of male weirdo who would get kicks from rocking up at a session like this to intimidate or simply from hearing the stories of experiences of abuse.
    Ah, ok. I'd have thought it was a genuine trans person attending for genuine reasons - but let's see what emerges.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959

    Andy_JS said:

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    The crowd in the Western Terrace at Headingley was behaving in exactly the same way it has done for decades.
    Nope, on Sunday, the only day I attended, there was a definite violent edge.

    Saw some actual fist fights.
    Cheap coke is absolutely everywhere. And turns most people into absolute and total c##ts.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,758

    On the day that “noisy” protest becomes unlawful under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, at least 20 police officers have just surrounded anti-Brexit protestor Steve Bray outside the Houses of Parliament and seized his loud speaker.

    https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1541750591822651393?s=20&t=m5rSHaS8FHyoh3oAdd6fhQ

    Steve Bray does the pro EU cause no favours with his dickhead antics.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,301

    No things like coke (the sugary stuff not the white powder) either.

    Perhaps banning sugary carbonated drinks would be a good Brexit-enabled policy that would do something about the obesity problem as well as reducing tooth decay. Only allow Diet Coke to be sold and take the regular version off the shelves.
    My son, since studying this sort of thing at college, has nagged me to stop drinking Diet Coke etc, he says that ordinary coke is less unhealthy than the Diet variety.
    https://inspiyr.com/dangers-of-diet-soda/#:~:text=Health dangers of diet soda include: 1 Heart,5 Bad teeth. 6 ... (more items)
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,632

    On the day that “noisy” protest becomes unlawful under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, at least 20 police officers have just surrounded anti-Brexit protestor Steve Bray outside the Houses of Parliament and seized his loud speaker.

    https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1541750591822651393?s=20&t=m5rSHaS8FHyoh3oAdd6fhQ

    Bloody ridiculous. I may not agree with him but he should have an absolute right to protest. These new laws are plain wrong and are designed by people too short sighted to realise that some day soon they will not be the ones in power and they are giving future Governments powers which will end up being used against them .
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,905
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    That's as may be, but it doesn't help. It seems pretty clear that religious belief goes with ways your brain is hardwired (cf the oddity that epileptic fits are often followed by religious conversion, as with - probably - St Paul). If yours is wired like that bully for you, but if it isn't, this is no more helpful than saying tall right handers have the best life expectancy so become tall and right handed.
    But there are routes to faith. I found God on LSD and speed (combined). Tho I would personally recommend high-quality ayahuasca if you want to take the hallucinogenic route - I tried it and REALLY enjoyed my chat with God last Xmas, in Ibiza


    Then there are retreats, fasting, religious pilgrimages, near death experiences, a week on Mount Athos (worked for lifelong atheist Bruce Chatwin)

    Or you could try being lined up in a firing squad only to be spared at the last moment (Dostoevsky), going to an Italian church during an emotional crisis (Stravinsky) or just lying on a bed in a garden on a midsummer’s evening in the Malverns (Auden)
    The shrink who collaborated with John Cleese on some pop psychology books (checks: Robin Skynner) describes something similar. Drugs in his case. Somehow you have to divert attention from the background noise of everyday blah, and then there's a signal there- David Cameron's "Magic FM as you drive out towards the Cotswolds". The experience is ubiquitous and consistent enough to be convincingly real, I think.

    What one does with that experience, and people do pile a whole lot of human phooey and will-to-power on top of it, is another matter. But people pile a whole lot of human phooey and will-to-power on top of all sorts of things. Doesn't negate the underlying experience.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959
    edited June 28
    Pulpstar said:

    On the day that “noisy” protest becomes unlawful under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, at least 20 police officers have just surrounded anti-Brexit protestor Steve Bray outside the Houses of Parliament and seized his loud speaker.

    https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1541750591822651393?s=20&t=m5rSHaS8FHyoh3oAdd6fhQ

    Steve Bray does the pro EU cause no favours with his dickhead antics.
    Totally agree, although I don't think it is a great look for day one to be taking away his kit. I think having a word, explaining that his antics can now potentially lead to prosecution, and give him opportunity to calm it down. He wouldn't of course, but then the authorities look far more justified if they have given him a number of polite warnings.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916
    Pulpstar said:

    On the day that “noisy” protest becomes unlawful under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, at least 20 police officers have just surrounded anti-Brexit protestor Steve Bray outside the Houses of Parliament and seized his loud speaker.

    https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1541750591822651393?s=20&t=m5rSHaS8FHyoh3oAdd6fhQ

    Steve Bray does the pro EU cause no favours with his dickhead antics.
    Is he the guy who shouts constantly at all the journalists outside Parliament?

    A fine line between the right to protest and causing a public nuisance.
  • pingping Posts: 3,215



    Listen to R4 start the week. There’s an Edinburgh doctor on. Has a book out called Recovery. Buying a dog was one of his low-hanging fruit healthwise. But whole show very thought provoking.

    Yes I heard that programme, too.

    An excellent listen.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,442
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    No the SC justices got the jobs because they were put in place by Republicans to overturn RvsW not owing to their legal skills. They vary in terms of quality and some like Kavanaugh are far from impressive.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959
    edited June 28
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On the day that “noisy” protest becomes unlawful under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, at least 20 police officers have just surrounded anti-Brexit protestor Steve Bray outside the Houses of Parliament and seized his loud speaker.

    https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1541750591822651393?s=20&t=m5rSHaS8FHyoh3oAdd6fhQ

    Steve Bray does the pro EU cause no favours with his dickhead antics.
    Is he the guy who shouts constantly at all the journalists outside Parliament?

    A fine line between the right to protest and causing a public nuisance.
    Its not just journalists, he hassles MPs on a regular basis. IMO he goes beyond protest and it is no less harassment than the anti-lockdown nutters who got banged up for hassling MPs.

    I would have tried to have quiet word with him and explain there are new powers now that could be used against him should he carry on his antics and tried to find a middle ground where he can continue to protest but screaming over journalists just trying to do their job and running down the street after Tory MPs slandering them every day isn't on.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,939

    On the day that “noisy” protest becomes unlawful under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, at least 20 police officers have just surrounded anti-Brexit protestor Steve Bray outside the Houses of Parliament and seized his loud speaker.

    https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1541750591822651393?s=20&t=m5rSHaS8FHyoh3oAdd6fhQ

    Bloody ridiculous. I may not agree with him but he should have an absolute right to protest. These new laws are plain wrong and are designed by people too short sighted to realise that some day soon they will not be the ones in power and they are giving future Governments powers which will end up being used against them .
    Agree completely. They have just discredited the new law in one fell swoop.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,470

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    That's as may be, but it doesn't help. It seems pretty clear that religious belief goes with ways your brain is hardwired (cf the oddity that epileptic fits are often followed by religious conversion, as with - probably - St Paul). If yours is wired like that bully for you, but if it isn't, this is no more helpful than saying tall right handers have the best life expectancy so become tall and right handed.
    But there are routes to faith. I found God on LSD and speed (combined). Tho I would personally recommend high-quality ayahuasca if you want to take the hallucinogenic route - I tried it and REALLY enjoyed my chat with God last Xmas, in Ibiza


    Then there are retreats, fasting, religious pilgrimages, near death experiences, a week on Mount Athos (worked for lifelong atheist Bruce Chatwin)

    Or you could try being lined up in a firing squad only to be spared at the last moment (Dostoevsky), going to an Italian church during an emotional crisis (Stravinsky) or just lying on a bed in a garden on a midsummer’s evening in the Malverns (Auden)
    The shrink who collaborated with John Cleese on some pop psychology books (checks: Robin Skynner) describes something similar. Drugs in his case. Somehow you have to divert attention from the background noise of everyday blah, and then there's a signal there- David Cameron's "Magic FM as you drive out towards the Cotswolds". The experience is ubiquitous and consistent enough to be convincingly real, I think.

    What one does with that experience, and people do pile a whole lot of human phooey and will-to-power on top of it, is another matter. But people pile a whole lot of human phooey and will-to-power on top of all sorts of things. Doesn't negate the underlying experience.
    The voice of God is on Magic FM?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On the day that “noisy” protest becomes unlawful under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, at least 20 police officers have just surrounded anti-Brexit protestor Steve Bray outside the Houses of Parliament and seized his loud speaker.

    https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1541750591822651393?s=20&t=m5rSHaS8FHyoh3oAdd6fhQ

    Steve Bray does the pro EU cause no favours with his dickhead antics.
    Is he the guy who shouts constantly at all the journalists outside Parliament?

    A fine line between the right to protest and causing a public nuisance.
    Its not just journalists, he hassles MPs on a regular basis. IMO he goes beyond protest and it is no less harassment than the anti-lockdown nutters who got banged up for hassling MPs.

    I would have tried to have quiet word with him and explain there are new powers now that could be used against him should he carry on his antics and tried to find a middle ground where he can continue to protest but screaming over journalists just trying to do their job and running down the street after Tory MPs slandering them every day isn't on.
    They've spent years trying to get him not to be a twat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289
    edited June 28

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    No the SC justices got the jobs because they were put in place by Republicans to overturn RvsW not owing to their legal skills. They vary in terms of quality and some like Kavanaugh are far from impressive.
    They were all judges before being nominated and appointed to the SC and most of them have Ivy League degrees
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,569
    kinabalu said:

    Selebian said:

    kinabalu said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.
    I didn't see any inference in the BBC report that the trans person attended for ungenuine reasons. And apparently the charity is clear in its materials that it's trans inclusive.
    No, I'm just taking that "the person presented as typically male, wearing male clothing" quote and raising the possibility. Anyone can of course dress how they like, but in my experience most trans women tend to dress in a fairly 'feminine' way (don't ask me to define 'feminine'!). Might be very unfair on the trans person who attended. I can however imagine a class of male weirdo who would get kicks from rocking up at a session like this to intimidate or simply from hearing the stories of experiences of abuse.
    Ah, ok. I'd have thought it was a genuine trans person attending for genuine reasons - but let's see what emerges.
    Irrelevant to the legal case, I'd have thought (principle is important, motivations of one particular attendee, not) so we'll likely never know.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,621

    Andy_JS said:

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    The crowd in the Western Terrace at Headingley was behaving in exactly the same way it has done for decades.
    Nope, on Sunday, the only day I attended, there was a definite violent edge.

    Saw some actual fist fights.
    Cheap coke is absolutely everywhere. And turns most people into absolute and total c##ts.
    Well I wouldn't know about cheap coke, I'm not sure it is a result of lockdown frustrations being released but I noticed a lot of aggro with people trying to build the beer snake.

    It ruins your view, and if you're at the point where the snake breaks and you get a lot of booze over you, then you're not going to be happy.

    It's one of the reasons I go for the alcohol free stands.

    #ReallyAPuritanAtHeart
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,470
    edited June 28
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    Hang on.
    There's nothing intrinsic in Hinduism or Judaism which mandates wealth creation.
    Judaism and Islam mandate literacy.
    But that's it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On the day that “noisy” protest becomes unlawful under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, at least 20 police officers have just surrounded anti-Brexit protestor Steve Bray outside the Houses of Parliament and seized his loud speaker.

    https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1541750591822651393?s=20&t=m5rSHaS8FHyoh3oAdd6fhQ

    Steve Bray does the pro EU cause no favours with his dickhead antics.
    Is he the guy who shouts constantly at all the journalists outside Parliament?

    A fine line between the right to protest and causing a public nuisance.
    Its not just journalists, he hassles MPs on a regular basis. IMO he goes beyond protest and it is no less harassment than the anti-lockdown nutters who got banged up for hassling MPs.

    I would have tried to have quiet word with him and explain there are new powers now that could be used against him should he carry on his antics and tried to find a middle ground where he can continue to protest but screaming over journalists just trying to do their job and running down the street after Tory MPs slandering them every day isn't on.
    I’ve little sympathy for MPs - hassling those who represent us should be a human right no matter how annoying, so long as they’re not physically assaulted.

    I’ve more sympathy with those working in the area, being harassed as they go about their regular business.
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 335

    Xtrain said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    The key factors contributing to good health and happiness are well known. What is remarkable is that such a large proportion of humanity completely ignores the research.

    Buy a dog.
    Go easy on the booze.
    No drugs.
    Routine, daily exercise.
    Being kind to others.
    Plenty of “down-time”, including generous convalescence periods after illness.
    Inter-generational households.
    Intimacy and touching.
    Feeling belonging to a larger group.

    It ain’t rocket science.
    I'd be an alcoholic couch potato without my dog.
    Listen to R4 start the week. There’s an Edinburgh doctor on. Has a book out called Recovery. Buying a dog was one of his low-hanging fruit healthwise. But whole show very thought provoking.
    Thanks.
    Will listen to it whilst cooking this evening.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959

    Andy_JS said:

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    The crowd in the Western Terrace at Headingley was behaving in exactly the same way it has done for decades.
    Nope, on Sunday, the only day I attended, there was a definite violent edge.

    Saw some actual fist fights.
    Cheap coke is absolutely everywhere. And turns most people into absolute and total c##ts.
    Well I wouldn't know about cheap coke, I'm not sure it is a result of lockdown frustrations being released but I noticed a lot of aggro with people trying to build the beer snake.

    It ruins your view, and if you're at the point where the snake breaks and you get a lot of booze over you, then you're not going to be happy.

    It's one of the reasons I go for the alcohol free stands.

    #ReallyAPuritanAtHeart
    I don't buy the lockdown frustrations being released angle, its just excusing bad behaviour. We saw it with the Euro finals, people openly taking loads of coke and then acting like total arseholes.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,785

    Andy_JS said:

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    The crowd in the Western Terrace at Headingley was behaving in exactly the same way it has done for decades.
    Nope, on Sunday, the only day I attended, there was a definite violent edge.

    Saw some actual fist fights.
    Cheap coke is absolutely everywhere. And turns most people into absolute and total c##ts.
    Well I wouldn't know about cheap coke, I'm not sure it is a result of lockdown frustrations being released but I noticed a lot of aggro with people trying to build the beer snake.

    It ruins your view, and if you're at the point where the snake breaks and you get a lot of booze over you, then you're not going to be happy.

    It's one of the reasons I go for the alcohol free stands.

    #ReallyAPuritanAtHeart
    That's why I pay £140 to go to Lords. Keeps the riff raff out.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    I wonder what mandate the head of a party sub branch that has fought every single election since 2014 on the promise that voting for them will stop indy ref 2 and lost by a distance every time feels he has?

    If wee Dougie & Co follow through on the 'we're no playing' gambit it'll be great entertainment to see them trying to observe omerta while dying to spout Project Fear 347.
    The only mandate needed is the Tory majority at Westminster to respect the once in a generation vote.

    The UK government will therefore continue to refuse an official indyref2, tell Unionists to boycott any unofficial referendum and completely ignore the result, just as their conservative cousins in Spain did in 2017 with the unofficial Catalan independence referendum.

    The future of the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government alone
    It is not even that as labour and the lib dems are also opposed to indyref2, so even without a conservative government, which is increasingly likely, Westminster is not going to grant a section 30 agreement in years
    Indeed, the SNP's only chance is to get a hung parliament in 2024 with the Tories most seats but the SNP having the balance of power.

    Another Tory majority or Labour most seats and zero chance of an official indyref2
    Big G & HYUD on the same democracy blocking, granny bashing page, hot from *checks notes* North Wales and Epping.
    Maybe you should get the Scots to want indyref2 which they clearly do not and it clearly upsets you that some of us who have as much right as yourself to express an opposing view, and one that would win a referendum if it was held anyway
    The electorate in Scotland voted to have one ...
    They voted for the SNP but do not want one at this time

    No polling has indicated support for indyref2 at this time and until it does Westminster will just say no
    Amazing. First it's seats. Then it's percentage of the vote. Then it's what polling says.

    Do you not believe in parliamentary democracy?
    That’s a tricky subject. The Parliament that gets to decide is Westminster. The Westminster Parliament has a majority opposed to a second referendum at this time. Ergo, parliamentary democracy works.

    Of course, that majority comes from non-Scottish seats. That whole analysis ignores the majority in Scottish seats at Westminster and in Holyrood for a new referendum. But do they matter? The current constitutional settlement is that this is a reserved power for the Westminster Parliament as a whole. And Scotland voted in a referendum for this existing constitutional settlement!

    One can argue it different ways and I’m not saying one or other view is better, but there is a case that this is entirely consistent with parliamentary democracy.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,442
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    That's as may be, but it doesn't help. It seems pretty clear that religious belief goes with ways your brain is hardwired (cf the oddity that epileptic fits are often followed by religious conversion, as with - probably - St Paul). If yours is wired like that bully for you, but if it isn't, this is no more helpful than saying tall right handers have the best life expectancy so become tall and right handed.
    But there are routes to faith. I found God on LSD and speed (combined). Tho I would personally recommend high-quality ayahuasca if you want to take the hallucinogenic route - I tried it and REALLY enjoyed my chat with God last Xmas, in Ibiza


    Then there are retreats, fasting, religious pilgrimages, near death experiences, a week on Mount Athos (worked for lifelong atheist Bruce Chatwin)

    Or you could try being lined up in a firing squad only to be spared at the last moment (Dostoevsky), going to an Italian church during an emotional crisis (Stravinsky) or just lying on a bed in a garden on a midsummer’s evening in the Malverns (Auden)
    The shrink who collaborated with John Cleese on some pop psychology books (checks: Robin Skynner) describes something similar. Drugs in his case. Somehow you have to divert attention from the background noise of everyday blah, and then there's a signal there- David Cameron's "Magic FM as you drive out towards the Cotswolds". The experience is ubiquitous and consistent enough to be convincingly real, I think.

    What one does with that experience, and people do pile a whole lot of human phooey and will-to-power on top of it, is another matter. But people pile a whole lot of human phooey and will-to-power on top of all sorts of things. Doesn't negate the underlying experience.
    The voice of God is on Magic FM?
    It's Lynn Parsons.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,178
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited June 28
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    Hang on.
    There's nothing intrinsic in Hinduism or Judaism which mandates wealth creation.
    Judaism and Islam mandate literacy.
    But that's it.
    Interestingly, but irrelevantly, the oldest of the organised religions, Zoroastrianism, is very keen on wealth in order to use that wealth for good. The wise men, if historically real, would have been Zoros
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,939
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
    There are hundreds of papers showing the health benefits of religious faith and observance


    “During the past 3 decades, at least 18 prospective studies have shown that religiously involved persons live longer.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 The populations examined in these studies include not only entire communities but also specific groups. The religious and spiritual variables used in these studies include membership in a religious congregation,27, 29, 32 attendance at religious services,24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 living within a religious community,35 and self-reported religiosity.41 One study42 of hospitalized veterans, however, found no relationship between religious involvement, religious coping, and mortality.

    “Recent prospective studies have carefully controlled for potential confounding variables.43 A 28-year study36 of 5286 adults (age, 21–65 years) found that frequent (=once a week) attenders of religious services were 23% less likely than nonattenders to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.93]) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, education, baseline health status, body mass index, health practices, and social connections. Notably, this study also found that mobility-impaired persons were more likely to be frequent attenders than nonattenders. A 5-year study37 examined the same relationship in 1931 adults (age, =55 years). Frequent attenders were 24% less likely to die than nonattenders during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62–0.94]) adjusted for age, sex, marital status, income, education, employment status, ethnicity, baseline health status, physical functioning, health habits (eg, exercise, smoking), social functioning and support, and mental health status.

    “A 6-year study40 examined the same relationship in 3968 adults (age, =65 years). Frequent attenders were 28% less likely than infrequent (=once a week) to die during the follow-up period (relative hazard, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64–0.81]) adjusted for demographic factors, health conditions, social connections, and health practices. Finally, a 9-year study39 of a nationally representative sample of 22,080 US adults (age, =20 years) found the risk of death for nonattenders to be 1.87 times the risk of death for frequent attenders (P
    That's as may be, but it doesn't help. It seems pretty clear that religious belief goes with ways your brain is hardwired (cf the oddity that epileptic fits are often followed by religious conversion, as with - probably - St Paul). If yours is wired like that bully for you, but if it isn't, this is no more helpful than saying tall right handers have the best life expectancy so become tall and right handed.
    But there are routes to faith. I found God on LSD and speed (combined). Tho I would personally recommend high-quality ayahuasca if you want to take the hallucinogenic route - I tried it and REALLY enjoyed my chat with God last Xmas, in Ibiza


    Then there are retreats, fasting, religious pilgrimages, near death experiences, a week on Mount Athos (worked for lifelong atheist Bruce Chatwin)

    Or you could try being lined up in a firing squad only to be spared at the last moment (Dostoevsky), going to an Italian church during an emotional crisis (Stravinsky) or just lying on a bed in a garden on a midsummer’s evening in the Malverns (Auden)
    Do you not think that all those incidents have something in common that causes chemical reaction in your brain?

    OR

    When someone sees pink elephants after 10 pints of Guinness do you genuinely think the pink elephants exist?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    Hang on.
    There's nothing intrinsic in Hinduism or Judaism which mandates wealth creation.
    Judaism and Islam mandate literacy.
    But that's it.
    Gaining wealth by honest means is one of the 4 main aims of Hinduism actually.

    Judaism also teaches God gave a special responsibility to create, cultivate and use wealth responsibly
  • Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On the day that “noisy” protest becomes unlawful under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, at least 20 police officers have just surrounded anti-Brexit protestor Steve Bray outside the Houses of Parliament and seized his loud speaker.

    https://twitter.com/charlotterlynch/status/1541750591822651393?s=20&t=m5rSHaS8FHyoh3oAdd6fhQ

    Steve Bray does the pro EU cause no favours with his dickhead antics.
    Is he the guy who shouts constantly at all the journalists outside Parliament?

    A fine line between the right to protest and causing a public nuisance.
    Isn't that Sam Coates?
  • eekeek Posts: 21,828

    Andy_JS said:

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    The crowd in the Western Terrace at Headingley was behaving in exactly the same way it has done for decades.
    Nope, on Sunday, the only day I attended, there was a definite violent edge.

    Saw some actual fist fights.
    The crowd in the Western Terrace at Headingley was behaving in exactly the same way it has done for decades - i.e. a violent edge with fist fights once in a while.

    Remember we are talking about Leeds...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,621
    I see we've discussed Max Verstappen's father-in-law used the n word in relation to Sir Lewis Hamilton.

    I think the only course of action is to strip Verstappen of his title from last year and ban him for the next 200 races.

    #RacismCannotWin
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
    India and Ireland and GB are not part of the same island as England and Scotland are. In any case Lloyd George kept part of Ireland via Northern Ireland. Indians are not part of the same ethnic group as the British either, unlike the American colonies at the War of Independence.

    If Johnson lost Scotland he would therefore be remembered for all eternity by history as the worst PM since Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century. Brexit a mere footnote
    England and Scotland are one island? Huge revolution in Ptolemaic geography. @IanB2 for one would be astounded that North Island is no longer separate from Wight.
    99% of England and Scotland are one island yes
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,178

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    I wonder what mandate the head of a party sub branch that has fought every single election since 2014 on the promise that voting for them will stop indy ref 2 and lost by a distance every time feels he has?

    If wee Dougie & Co follow through on the 'we're no playing' gambit it'll be great entertainment to see them trying to observe omerta while dying to spout Project Fear 347.
    The only mandate needed is the Tory majority at Westminster to respect the once in a generation vote.

    The UK government will therefore continue to refuse an official indyref2, tell Unionists to boycott any unofficial referendum and completely ignore the result, just as their conservative cousins in Spain did in 2017 with the unofficial Catalan independence referendum.

    The future of the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government alone
    It is not even that as labour and the lib dems are also opposed to indyref2, so even without a conservative government, which is increasingly likely, Westminster is not going to grant a section 30 agreement in years
    Indeed, the SNP's only chance is to get a hung parliament in 2024 with the Tories most seats but the SNP having the balance of power.

    Another Tory majority or Labour most seats and zero chance of an official indyref2
    Big G & HYUD on the same democracy blocking, granny bashing page, hot from *checks notes* North Wales and Epping.
    Maybe you should get the Scots to want indyref2 which they clearly do not and it clearly upsets you that some of us who have as much right as yourself to express an opposing view, and one that would win a referendum if it was held anyway
    The electorate in Scotland voted to have one ...
    They voted for the SNP but do not want one at this time

    No polling has indicated support for indyref2 at this time and until it does Westminster will just say no
    Amazing. First it's seats. Then it's percentage of the vote. Then it's what polling says.

    Do you not believe in parliamentary democracy?
    That’s a tricky subject. The Parliament that gets to decide is Westminster. The Westminster Parliament has a majority opposed to a second referendum at this time. Ergo, parliamentary democracy works.

    Of course, that majority comes from non-Scottish seats. That whole analysis ignores the majority in Scottish seats at Westminster and in Holyrood for a new referendum. But do they matter? The current constitutional settlement is that this is a reserved power for the Westminster Parliament as a whole. And Scotland voted in a referendum for this existing constitutional settlement!

    One can argue it different ways and I’m not saying one or other view is better, but there is a case that this is entirely consistent with parliamentary democracy.
    But Scotland didn't vote for the existing settlement, ie after Brexit. It voted for the opposite, to remain in the EU, which was explicitly promised as only available if voting No.

    Nevertheless: there remains a conflict, which will not be resolved by carpet-biting and claiming the immutable eternity of the UK (which of course only dates from the 1950s, 1970s, or 1920s, depending on how one takes Rockall's status).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,470

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
    I think there are a lot of other things going on in these data. Hindus in the US will have a high percentage of immigrants whose entry to the country depended on having high educational qualifications and/or working in a high paid profession. A lot of American Jews are not especially religious - their Jewishness is as much a marker of identity as devout faith - and orthodox Jews tend to be poorer and less well educated than Liberal Jews. Similarly, younger Americans are more likely to be atheists but also to be poorer. And the wealthier Christian denominations like Episcopalian (Anglican) and Presbyterian are the most Liberal/least devout.
    Religion has a lot going for it but in a society organised along rational lines in which education is a key determinant of success and people are free to organise their lives as they see fit the ultra religious will find themselves at a disadvantage. Which is precisely why they are often so opposed to that kind of society emerging or persisting. I would put religious zealots of all stripes in this bucket, of course, not just those within the Christian faith.
    That does not change the fact religion does not automatically lead to lower education and income levels. Indeed quite often high levels of religion in your family will lead to more commitment to study and in the case of Jews and Hindus for example a strong commitment to wealth creation, getting a high status job and providing for your family.

    Note too the majority of US SC justices are Roman Catholics and their hard work to get them to that position has now enabled them to implement the Vatican's line on the rest of the US and repeal the constitutional right to an abortion
    Hang on.
    There's nothing intrinsic in Hinduism or Judaism which mandates wealth creation.
    Judaism and Islam mandate literacy.
    But that's it.
    Interestingly, but irrelevantly, the oldest of the organised religions, Zoroastrianism, is very keen on wealth in order to use that wealth for good. The wise men, if historically real, would have been Zoros
    Indeed.
    What's more. Strict caste rules, which have become entwined with some aspects of Hinduism, actively discourage social mobility.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,088

    I see we've discussed Max Verstappen's father-in-law used the n word in relation to Sir Lewis Hamilton.

    I think the only course of action is to strip Verstappen of his title from last year and ban him for the next 200 races.

    #RacismCannotWin

    Jos Verstappen is a really nasty piece of work. That should not reflect on his son, but whenever I see him giving his son 'advice' I get a little shiver for Max.
This discussion has been closed.