That is riveting. Also a great relief, because after posting that I decided that there was a 30% chance that spine pads were something I had just dreamt.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
Oh, right you are - I retract the above. It seems that claims of lower carbon footprint rest on 'soil carbon sequestration', rather thsn healthier no belchy cows.
P Bullocks
Grass fed beef is much healthier though of course.
Not for the cows, it's not
Bullocks
Nice try, have you heifer considered a career in standup?
You've had your fun, now move along, little doggie!
My favorite Gary Larson cartoon: Cows and Great Chicago Fire
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
Oh, right you are - I retract the above. It seems that claims of lower carbon footprint rest on 'soil carbon sequestration', rather thsn healthier no belchy cows.
P Bullocks
Grass fed beef is much healthier though of course.
Not for the cows, it's not
Bullocks
Nice try, have you heifer considered a career in standup?
A stirk and exposed position, though, up on the stage.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
Oh, right you are - I retract the above. It seems that claims of lower carbon footprint rest on 'soil carbon sequestration', rather thsn healthier no belchy cows.
P Bullocks
Grass fed beef is much healthier though of course.
Not for the cows, it's not
Bullocks
Nice try, have you heifer considered a career in standup?
A stirk and exposed position, though, up on the stage.
Am I the only person on this site who, book-value aside, thinks that Truss is the best candidate?
Almost everyone else on this site seems to be anti-Truss for one reason or another it seems.
She seems serious, passionate and capable. I think you should back her to the hilt.
From a Labour perspective she looks suitable. The public persona and charisma of T May + a harsh set of principles and without the solidity and correctness. I think Labourites are looking at a further period in opposition if Kemi gets it, otherwise they should be reasonably confident. Truss would be the Labour favourite though, as there is something to be said for all then others.
Truss is probably better than Rishi for a host of reasons. Chief among them not having to take ownership for the economic situation.
His stature will also be an issue on TV.
The real question is whether Kemi would really broaden or sustain the party's reach.
I'm not sure she will appeal to UKIP leaning former Labour voters in the Red Wall - or to Remain leaning Wets down south.
She is articulate, attractive and sharp. I'm just not sure she is the answer to the fragmenting electoral coalition that the next leader will need to address.
I don't think there is a large Black middle class vote that will flip if she runs - unlike the sizeable Hindu vote which is already moving into the Tory column.
And she has personal weaknesses - I think she will look too ideological. She doesn't have personal gravitas - although she might develop that in time.
My gut feeling is that she doesn't come across well on "women's issues" - health, transport, education etc - which is where the current Tory party is getting crucified among female swing voters. (Hillary Clinton had the same problem - she really loved the big picture economic and geopolitical strategy - and that was ultimately reflected in voter perceptions).
It is remarkable how little attention the Tories have paid to these issues. Housing has only belatedly got onto the agenda because it is biting young activists.
So the idea that a black female leader would close off the race and gender angle evaporates under closer scrutiny.
And if she did win pretty soon she would get dragged down into the sorry horse trading that running the country involves.
Selling personal sacrifices to the electorate while cutting corporate taxation is going to be a tough message.
I think she is really cementing her position as a strong challenger for leader in 2025 if the election is lost.
I don't think the fact that she's black would affect things much - people who vote purely on race are really rare now. She's interesting and lucid and although she's right-wing she does'nt have the air of a head-banger who never listens - witness her firm commitment to net zero. I'm not going to vote Tory if she's leader, but I know people who might, and really wouldn't for the others. Essentially she fits the "time for a change " narrative - Sunak and Truss are not a change, and Mordaunt hasn't succeeded in establishing a USP.
Tonight's ballot won't change much, But I suspect tomorrow's ballot is going to be all about Truss vs Badenoch, with Mordaunt trailing.
I don't think Truss wanted to risk another debate match up with Badenoch and has enough momentum off last night to get the numbers.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
Really? I drive a fairly old and cheap car but it has air conditioning. Cooler in the car than in the house once you've been driving a bit.
I've been surprised at how pleasant all this is. 37 is a very high number for a thermometer to be saying, but it's a dry heat with a light breeze. Shade is more pleasant than direct sunlight, but both are more pleasant than four degrees and wind and rain.
Christ Kemi really is dumb, the actuarial tables say she'll still be around here.
…I believe there is climate change and that’s something we do need to tackle, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't bankrupt our economy. We've got to take people with us. What would happen if we moved it to 2060 or 2070? We're not going to be here. Let's be realistic”.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
I note that the roads look very quiet this evening on Google Maps.
Has Johnson so poisoned public life that we wont be able to go back to a world where every single word they say is not a lie rather than the traditional some of what they say is a lie?
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
Some of us don't have much choice, of course...
Indeed. And that's important to note. Many of us can talk about the joys of WfH; the poor sods I saw on the West Cambroune building site this morning cannot exactly be working from home. Someone else's future home, maybe...
Christ Kemi really is dumb, the actuarial tables say she'll still be around here.
…I believe there is climate change and that’s something we do need to tackle, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't bankrupt our economy. We've got to take people with us. What would happen if we moved it to 2060 or 2070? We're not going to be here. Let's be realistic”.
Am I the only person on this site who, book-value aside, thinks that Truss is the best candidate?
Almost everyone else on this site seems to be anti-Truss for one reason or another it seems.
She seems serious, passionate and capable. I think you should back her to the hilt.
From a Labour perspective she looks suitable. The public persona and charisma of T May + a harsh set of principles and without the solidity and correctness. I think Labourites are looking at a further period in opposition if Kemi gets it, otherwise they should be reasonably confident. Truss would be the Labour favourite though, as there is something to be said for all then others.
Truss is probably better than Rishi for a host of reasons. Chief among them not having to take ownership for the economic situation.
His stature will also be an issue on TV.
The real question is whether Kemi would really broaden or sustain the party's reach.
I'm not sure she will appeal to UKIP leaning former Labour voters in the Red Wall - or to Remain leaning Wets down south.
She is articulate, attractive and sharp. I'm just not sure she is the answer to the fragmenting electoral coalition that the next leader will need to address.
I don't think there is a large Black middle class vote that will flip if she runs - unlike the sizeable Hindu vote which is already moving into the Tory column.
And she has personal weaknesses - I think she will look too ideological. She doesn't have personal gravitas - although she might develop that in time.
My gut feeling is that she doesn't come across well on "women's issues" - health, transport, education etc - which is where the current Tory party is getting crucified among female swing voters. (Hillary Clinton had the same problem - she really loved the big picture economic and geopolitical strategy - and that was ultimately reflected in voter perceptions).
It is remarkable how little attention the Tories have paid to these issues. Housing has only belatedly got onto the agenda because it is biting young activists.
So the idea that a black female leader would close off the race and gender angle evaporates under closer scrutiny.
And if she did win pretty soon she would get dragged down into the sorry horse trading that running the country involves.
Selling personal sacrifices to the electorate while cutting corporate taxation is going to be a tough message.
I think she is really cementing her position as a strong challenger for leader in 2025 if the election is lost.
I don't think the fact that she's black would affect things much - people who vote purely on race are really rare now. She's interesting and lucid and although she's right-wing she does'nt have the air of a head-banger who never listens - witness her firm commitment to net zero. I'm not going to vote Tory if she's leader, but I know people who might, and really wouldn't for the others. Essentially she fits the "time for a change " narrative - Sunak and Truss are not a change, and Mordaunt hasn't succeeded in establishing a USP.
Tonight's ballot won't change much, But I suspect tomorrow's ballot is going to be all about Truss vs Badenoch, with Mordaunt trailing.
I don't think Truss wanted to risk another debate match up with Badenoch and has enough momentum off last night to get the numbers.
Both RS and LT figure, quit while your ahead, or at least not way behind.
Also each fears chance that PM might perk herself up enough to threaten his OR her top two chances.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
Some of us don't have much choice, of course...
Indeed. And that's important to note. Many of us can talk about the joys of WfH; the poor sods I saw on the West Cambroune building site this morning cannot exactly be working from home. Someone else's future home, maybe...
I find I work much more effectively at home. And it's much cheaper. Plus the internet connection is about a thousand times better.
But bizarrely schools are actually going the other way. My school is now insisting we* stay an extra three hours a week on site next year to do work.
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
Oh, right you are - I retract the above. It seems that claims of lower carbon footprint rest on 'soil carbon sequestration', rather thsn healthier no belchy cows.
P Bullocks
Grass fed beef is much healthier though of course.
Not for the cows, it's not
Bullocks
Nice try, have you heifer considered a career in standup?
You've had your fun, now move along, little doggie!
My favorite Gary Larson cartoon: Cows and Great Chicago Fire
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
Oh, right you are - I retract the above. It seems that claims of lower carbon footprint rest on 'soil carbon sequestration', rather thsn healthier no belchy cows.
P Bullocks
Grass fed beef is much healthier though of course.
Not for the cows, it's not
Bullocks
Nice try, have you heifer considered a career in standup?
A stirk and exposed position, though, up on the stage.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
I note that the roads look very quiet this evening on Google Maps.
What's the issue with driving? Most cars have aircon, unlike most houses here!
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
Oh, right you are - I retract the above. It seems that claims of lower carbon footprint rest on 'soil carbon sequestration', rather thsn healthier no belchy cows.
P Bullocks
Grass fed beef is much healthier though of course.
Not for the cows, it's not
Bullocks
Nice try, have you heifer considered a career in standup?
A stirk and exposed position, though, up on the stage.
I was just exploring udder options.
I’ve herd better from you.
Yep - cud do better.
I don't agree with chew.
Ruminate on it.
Since you ask, I will ruminate on it until Morn arrives.
(Now there's a really obscure pun. I wonder how many people will get it.)
Christ Kemi really is dumb, the actuarial tables say she'll still be around here.
…I believe there is climate change and that’s something we do need to tackle, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't bankrupt our economy. We've got to take people with us. What would happen if we moved it to 2060 or 2070? We're not going to be here. Let's be realistic”.
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Plus one. The depressing thing is the ease with which trans extremists have sold themselves to posturing gammon-in-woke-clothing twerps like JJ as gay lib just rebadged for the next generation.
Christ Kemi really is dumb, the actuarial tables say she'll still be around here.
…I believe there is climate change and that’s something we do need to tackle, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't bankrupt our economy. We've got to take people with us. What would happen if we moved it to 2060 or 2070? We're not going to be here. Let's be realistic”.
Do you need an official met office weather station nearby to get the UK heat record ? I say this as we're looking at some huge temps tommorow but there's not an official met office station anywhere near
Christ Kemi really is dumb, the actuarial tables say she'll still be around here.
…I believe there is climate change and that’s something we do need to tackle, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't bankrupt our economy. We've got to take people with us. What would happen if we moved it to 2060 or 2070? We're not going to be here. Let's be realistic”.
She's not saying she'll be dead, just that she'll no longer be among those making decisions (this not being the US, which is basically a gerontocracy - this country is run entirely for the benefit of the elderly, but not yet by them).
Anyway, she is almost 50:50 to be dead by 20260, and more likely than not to be gone by 2070.
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
Most of the dinosaurs in the Tory Party died decades ago.
So are there no circumstances in which it should be delayed?
I know PM has got into trouble for some changes of position. I didn’t expect KB to overtake her at speed like this! Two U-turns in… what, under 6 hours?
Do you need an official met office weather station nearby to get the UK heat record ? I say this as we're looking at some huge temps tommorow but there's not an official met office station anywhere near
Tentative view of the house is yes you do.
you would hope the met office would helicopter themselves to likely winning spots and set up temp weather stations, but there is prolly a rule they have to spend 48 hours bedding in before you accept readings from them
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
I note that the roads look very quiet this evening on Google Maps.
What's the issue with driving? Most cars have aircon, unlike most houses here!
About three quarters, I think, but of those for a significant number it will now be non functional I suspect, since it’s non essential maintenance (until now…).
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Post of the day! Do trans extremists realise, or care, that they are making the lives of ordinary trans people more difficult?
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Ms Free, before you accuse other people out for 'ignorant comments', I might suggest you remove the plank from your own eye.
*You* want to remove the rights for transgender people from being able to change gender. Because you won't let them use women's toilets. Which they need to do by law for a year or two, and which is a reasonable requirement IMO.
Let me quote back something you said the other day. There is a great deal to say about it: "Women can always tell when a man pretends to be a woman. And I'd tell them to use the men's." (*)
1) You do not speak for all women. I have asked a couple of women, and they disagree with your comments above, one quite fiercely. This is not the first time you have deigned to speak for all women.
2) Women come in all types, shapes and sizes. Some look a little androgynous. Others, including some gay women, choose to look a little androgynous. Others may not fit your idea of 'woman'. Particularly ones that may be of other ethnicities. Or ones who have had cancer. Or ones who are disabled. Or black. Or just *different*.
3) Trans people come in all types, shapes and sizes. They are not always cartoonish and obvious. Rarely, IME, because many of them just want to get on with their lives without getting hassled by bigots.
4) Just think for a moment: if you are wrong, and tell a woman who is a woman to go and use the male facilities, what harm are you causing them? How would you feel is someone said to you that you had to use the gents because you are not a lady?
5) What gives you the right to police this? If not you, who?
6) How closely do you 'examine' the people who come into the ladies?
7) Why not let people be what they want to be, as long as they do not hurt other people?
8) How common do you really thing this is?
You are the extremist. Your position will cause no end of harm to trans people and women who do not match your ideal of what a 'woman' is.
RE Motorway traffic. Apart from appalling behaviour from drivers who never seem to indicate when changing lanes, I drove home, bar two rest stops, from the Lake District and round from the M40 to the M3 without stopping !!!
Christ Kemi really is dumb, the actuarial tables say she'll still be around here.
…I believe there is climate change and that’s something we do need to tackle, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't bankrupt our economy. We've got to take people with us. What would happen if we moved it to 2060 or 2070? We're not going to be here. Let's be realistic”.
She's not saying she'll be dead, just that she'll no longer be among those making decisions (this not being the US, which is basically a gerontocracy - this country is run entirely for the benefit of the elderly, but not yet by them).
Anyway, she is almost 50:50 to be dead by 20260, and more likely than not to be gone by 2070.
What on earth do you have against her?
Maybe "we are not going to be here" comment was about the death of the species thanks to out of control climate change as the permafrost methane melts and kaboom?
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Question, do you know any actual trans women?
Most trans women, the second they go on hormones, that puts an end to their willy - it doesn't work any more.
I am not trying to denigrate your position at all. I'm sure most people IRL would say I'm somewhere between "hard right" "reactionary" "libertarian" if I'm lucky.
But knowing and speaking to actual trans women has made me realise how vulnerable they are and how they are demonised as "men" when in fact their actions and their behaviour is anything but.
I understand that there are certain men who want to take advantage of this and manipulate the system for their own gain, and I think women's rights should be respected.
But I do urge you to chat to some trans women to see the flip side of the coin to how they are treated. Many of them have experienced horrific violence at the hands of men and deserve protection.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
Really? I drive a fairly old and cheap car but it has air conditioning. Cooler in the car than in the house once you've been driving a bit.
I've been surprised at how pleasant all this is. 37 is a very high number for a thermometer to be saying, but it's a dry heat with a light breeze. Shade is more pleasant than direct sunlight, but both are more pleasant than four degrees and wind and rain.
Sounds delightful. How folks react & respond to heat is very variable. Plus depends what one is doing in the sun, and for how long. Plus availability of respite IF it starts getting to you.
As for car, it was one of my favorite ways to beat the heat IF it had a/c which was indeed most of the time.
MANY years ago, worked part-time driving a taxi in Baton Rouge. We were specifically forbidden from turning on the a/c UNLESS we had a fare in the car.
I knew every patch of shade in town you could drive a taxi cab beneath.
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
Most of the dinosaurs in the Tory Party died decades ago.
There are dinosaurs in all the parties: and long may that continue, because they do speak for a sizable portion of the electorate. It is just the type of dinosaur changes over time. They are a brake on change: which may be fine, as long as they do not stop the change. Or reverse it.
RE Motorway traffic. Apart from appalling behaviour from drivers who never seem to indicate when changing lanes, I drove home, bar two rest stops, from the Lake District without stopping and round from the M40 to the M3 without stopping !!!
Conversely, I saw a big accident on the other side of the road, and was a mile or so on held up by the Fire Brigade extinguishing a Caterham 7 which appeared spontaneously to have combusted. During a 10 mile commute.
I was expecting to find the heat oppressive today but in fact it's not too bad. Not much humidity.
The problem is going to be the very warm night approaching - I suspect many will find sleep elusive or difficult and with higher minima the Sun can soon kick the temperatures up tomorrow.
As the cooler air starts to approach from the West, humidity levels will rise and it actually become very unpleasant as it starts to cool down.
If Biden did that, people would be shouting "senile", but Johnson gets away with it...
Well, that is because Biden is senile. Johnson is unlikely to be, at his age. Not sure in what sense Johnson "gets away with it" though. You are kinder to him than most of us.
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
Most of the dinosaurs in the Tory Party died decades ago.
There are dinosaurs in all the parties: and long may that continue, because they do speak for a sizable portion of the electorate. It is just the type of dinosaur changes over time. They are a brake on change: which may be fine, as long as they do not stop the change. Or reverse it.
The problem is, the big dinosaur Rex it for the rest of us.
Christ Kemi really is dumb, the actuarial tables say she'll still be around here.
…I believe there is climate change and that’s something we do need to tackle, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't bankrupt our economy. We've got to take people with us. What would happen if we moved it to 2060 or 2070? We're not going to be here. Let's be realistic”.
She's not saying she'll be dead, just that she'll no longer be among those making decisions (this not being the US, which is basically a gerontocracy - this country is run entirely for the benefit of the elderly, but not yet by them).
Anyway, she is almost 50:50 to be dead by 20260, and more likely than not to be gone by 2070.
What on earth do you have against her?
She's so overrated, I asked her supporters if they could link to a decent speech or policy she had implemented and there nothing but tumbleweeds.
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Post of the day! Do trans extremists realise, or care, that they are making the lives of ordinary trans people more difficult?
They don't care. I have 2 friends who have gender dysphoria, 1 a lesbian woman and 1 a transwoman and neither support - in fact, are in despair at - the activities of and nonsense being spouted by the activists. Trans people are simply being used by those who are seeking to use gender ideology for their own purposes.
Worth looking at the money to be made by the drug companies peddling puberty blocking hormones and cross-sex hormones, the lifelong and pretty unpleasant medical consequences of those drugs and who they are funding. This is a medical scandal in the making.
If Biden did that, people would be shouting "senile", but Johnson gets away with it...
It's not senility. It's his utter indifference for what is true and what is not. It's a minor thing to either lie about or care so little about so as to get it wrong, but he does it anyway.
He could so easily have reframed the point to why the government decided to put down the motion because Labour was foolishly demanding one etc, but he didn't, he decided to lie/be careless about an inconsequential detail instead.
It's a small thing, but as gardenwalker implies, its his inability to do basic things competently that has led to his downfall when he should have been bulletproof. Because getting the small things right matters.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
I note that the roads look very quiet this evening on Google Maps.
What's the issue with driving? Most cars have aircon, unlike most houses here!
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Question, do you know any actual trans women?
Most trans women, the second they go on hormones, that puts an end to their willy - it doesn't work any more.
I am not trying to denigrate your position at all. I'm sure most people IRL would say I'm somewhere between "hard right" "reactionary" "libertarian" if I'm lucky.
But knowing and speaking to actual trans women has made me realise how vulnerable they are and how they are demonised as "men" when in fact their actions and their behaviour is anything but.
I understand that there are certain men who want to take advantage of this and manipulate the system for their own gain, and I think women's rights should be respected.
But I do urge you to chat to some trans women to see the flip side of the coin to how they are treated. Many of them have experienced horrific violence at the hands of men and deserve protection.
You say "I think women's rights should be respected" as if that is a on the one hand, on the other issue on which you have come to a conclusion after weighing the evidence on both sides.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
I note that the roads look very quiet this evening on Google Maps.
What's the issue with driving? Most cars have aircon, unlike most houses here!
If Biden did that, people would be shouting "senile", but Johnson gets away with it...
Did he get away with it?
He managed to lose his job within three years of winning a significant majority. Is there any precedent for that at all?
Eden.
Ah yes. I actually hadn’t realised that Eden won an election.
Robert Blake's wonderfully acid comment on the subject of Eden's election win was 'Seldom can the euphoria of success have been followed so swiftly by the disillusionment of failure.'
IIRC Sri Lanka didn’t run out of currency - they chose to ban fertiliser for their own reasons (albeit mad ones) failing to realise that the existing cash export crops were dependent on fertiliser imports & there wasn’t enough domestically produced fertiliser (regardless of source) to make up the difference. So exports fell more than imports & triggered a currency / balance of payments crisis.
There was an excellent bbc world service programme on this last night;
“The Climate Question: Can we feed the world without using chemical fertilisers?”
TBH, I usually skip over these climate programmes because they tend to be rather boring. But the title of this one piqued my interest.
Anyway;
Short answer is: No. The world can probably feed about 4bn people. But long term, chemical fertilisers are a big climate problem because methane is such a destructive greenhouse gas.
Innovative solutions required.
Farm kangaroos instead of cows. Produce much less methane.
Milking them is a bit of a faff, though.
No animal is created/evolved not to digest its food properly. The cows are fed shite, that's why they fart/burp. Do the same to Kangaroos; you'd get the same outcome.
No, it is because cows ferment cellulose to break it down into digestible form, methane is a byproduct.
Oh, right you are - I retract the above. It seems that claims of lower carbon footprint rest on 'soil carbon sequestration', rather thsn healthier no belchy cows.
P Bullocks
Grass fed beef is much healthier though of course.
Not for the cows, it's not
Bullocks
Nice try, have you heifer considered a career in standup?
A stirk and exposed position, though, up on the stage.
I was just exploring udder options.
I’ve herd better from you.
Yep - cud do better.
The time for all these terrible cow puns is not during a heatwave, but when it's Friesian.
Comments
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30015898
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/30258628723705555/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/395331673516276612/
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1549079013443919875
Boris Johnson is not "the worst sort of mass murderer and criminal in political history," says Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh.
So what else might somebody's something-or-other say about today?
Best I can come up with is, hotter than the hinges of hell.
Also, hotter than a two-dollar pistol on a Saturday night. (Our gun-nut culture goes WAY back.)
Betfair next prime minister
2.14 Rishi Sunak 47%
3.45 Liz Truss 29%
5 Penny Mordaunt 20%
17 Kemi Badenoch 6%
170 Tom Tugendhat
250 Dominic Raab
Next Conservative leader
2.16 Rishi Sunak 46%
3.45 Liz Truss 29%
4.5 Penny Mordaunt 22%
16.5 Kemi Badenoch 6%
160 Tom Tugendhat
To be in final two
1.04 Rishi Sunak 96%
1.67 Liz Truss 60%
2.24 Penny Mordaunt 45%
11 Kemi Badenoch 9%
120 Tom Tugendhat
I've been surprised at how pleasant all this is. 37 is a very high number for a thermometer to be saying, but it's a dry heat with a light breeze. Shade is more pleasant than direct sunlight, but both are more pleasant than four degrees and wind and rain.
…I believe there is climate change and that’s something we do need to tackle, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't bankrupt our economy. We've got to take people with us. What would happen if we moved it to 2060 or 2070? We're not going to be here. Let's be realistic”.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1549096812241354752
Shunning behaviour.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you:
- it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys;
- it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs;
- it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers;
- it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present;
- it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers;
- it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Well, that's all good then.
Either that, or she thinks the Tories will have gone the way of the National Liberals, SDLP, Peelites, etc. etc.
So AEBE, Net Zero 2070, then ?
Also each fears chance that PM might perk herself up enough to threaten his OR her top two chances.
But bizarrely schools are actually going the other way. My school is now insisting we* stay an extra three hours a week on site next year to do work.
*I say 'we.' I am of course unaffected.
Surely not.
Most cars have aircon, unlike most houses here!
You can buy a Lada with the compensation given to you by the state!
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1548992984946974720?s=20&t=xXfRKgCd0giTa3V-8jS7Ug
Sitting in it right now!
(Now there's a really obscure pun. I wonder how many people will get it.)
I say this as we're looking at some huge temps tommorow but there's not an official met office station anywhere near
He has just managed to do a poo in the potty.
He is ready for leadership of the Conservative Party.
Anyway, she is almost 50:50 to be dead by 20260, and more likely than not to be gone by 2070.
What on earth do you have against her?
you would hope the met office would helicopter themselves to likely winning spots and set up temp weather stations, but there is prolly a rule they have to spend 48 hours bedding in before you accept readings from them
*You* want to remove the rights for transgender people from being able to change gender. Because you won't let them use women's toilets. Which they need to do by law for a year or two, and which is a reasonable requirement IMO.
Let me quote back something you said the other day. There is a great deal to say about it:
"Women can always tell when a man pretends to be a woman. And I'd tell them to use the men's." (*)
1) You do not speak for all women. I have asked a couple of women, and they disagree with your comments above, one quite fiercely. This is not the first time you have deigned to speak for all women.
2) Women come in all types, shapes and sizes. Some look a little androgynous. Others, including some gay women, choose to look a little androgynous. Others may not fit your idea of 'woman'. Particularly ones that may be of other ethnicities. Or ones who have had cancer. Or ones who are disabled. Or black. Or just *different*.
3) Trans people come in all types, shapes and sizes. They are not always cartoonish and obvious. Rarely, IME, because many of them just want to get on with their lives without getting hassled by bigots.
4) Just think for a moment: if you are wrong, and tell a woman who is a woman to go and use the male facilities, what harm are you causing them? How would you feel is someone said to you that you had to use the gents because you are not a lady?
5) What gives you the right to police this? If not you, who?
6) How closely do you 'examine' the people who come into the ladies?
7) Why not let people be what they want to be, as long as they do not hurt other people?
8) How common do you really thing this is?
You are the extremist. Your position will cause no end of harm to trans people and women who do not match your ideal of what a 'woman' is.
(*) From https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/11/should-we-be-following-gove-backing-kemi-badenoch/
That makes it worthwhile on it's own.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1549064476909092865
If Biden did that, people would be shouting "senile", but Johnson gets away with it...
Indeed. Perfect for Labour.
Most trans women, the second they go on hormones, that puts an end to their willy - it doesn't work any more.
I am not trying to denigrate your position at all. I'm sure most people IRL would say I'm somewhere between "hard right" "reactionary" "libertarian" if I'm lucky.
But knowing and speaking to actual trans women has made me realise how vulnerable they are and how they are demonised as "men" when in fact their actions and their behaviour is anything but.
I understand that there are certain men who want to take advantage of this and manipulate the system for their own gain, and I think women's rights should be respected.
But I do urge you to chat to some trans women to see the flip side of the coin to how they are treated. Many of them have experienced horrific violence at the hands of men and deserve protection.
He is a busted flush, circling the plughole.
As for car, it was one of my favorite ways to beat the heat IF it had a/c which was indeed most of the time.
MANY years ago, worked part-time driving a taxi in Baton Rouge. We were specifically forbidden from turning on the a/c UNLESS we had a fare in the car.
I knew every patch of shade in town you could drive a taxi cab beneath.
He managed to lose his job within three years of winning a significant majority. Is there any precedent for that at all?
During a 10 mile commute.
As the cooler air starts to approach from the West, humidity levels will rise and it actually become very unpleasant as it starts to cool down.
She's an empty shell, not the new Thatcher.
Worth looking at the money to be made by the drug companies peddling puberty blocking hormones and cross-sex hormones, the lifelong and pretty unpleasant medical consequences of those drugs and who they are funding. This is a medical scandal in the making.
He could so easily have reframed the point to why the government decided to put down the motion because Labour was foolishly demanding one etc, but he didn't, he decided to lie/be careless about an inconsequential detail instead.
It's a small thing, but as gardenwalker implies, its his inability to do basic things competently that has led to his downfall when he should have been bulletproof. Because getting the small things right matters.
Mordaunt 82 (-1)
Truss 71 (+7)
Badenoch 58 (+9)
Tugendhat 31 (-1)
357 votes cast out of 358 possible votes.
I have potties to manage; bums to wipe.
As an epitaph it would do for Johnson too.
Badenoch 58
Mordaunt 82
Sunak 115
Tugendhat 31
Truss 71
Tugendhat out
Rishi is PM
mord 82
115 RS
71 LT
31 TT