Excellent thread, @Cyclefree (which of course means I agree with it)! Intolerance of others views, in my opinion, is a greater long term threat to western democracy than Putin, the energy crisis, or even Brexit. I hope Sturgeon’s twitler youth don’t read it, or you will be vilified, victimised and cancelled. This seems an appropriate quote.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of Ukraine in April, 1986 people were advised to drink red wine or vodka in order to neutralize radio-active toxic effects.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Agreed. She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender. Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?
You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.
Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why
Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
You what?
What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy
Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.
are you solely responsible? is he solely responsible? are you partly to blame?
Take your time.
He is solely responsible
I feel like IshmaelZ thinks that ridiculous scenario, which is nothing whatsoever like the issue that has caused debate, is some devasting counter, since it appears to be the sole basis on which his argument is based.
I salute your indefatigable stupidity.
Seriously: if the axeman has an axe and expresses the intention of killing his wife, you think the informant has no moral responsibility at all? Seriously?
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of Ukraine in April, 1986 people were advised to drink red wine or vodka in order to neutralize radio-active toxic effects.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Agreed. She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender. Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?
You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.
Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why
Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
You what?
What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy
Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.
are you solely responsible? is he solely responsible? are you partly to blame?
Take your time.
He is solely responsible
Moral imbecility.
Well you certainly have been displaying it to us all but most people that read here really don't need you to explain what you have displayed.
What's interesting about Cyclefree's article is that its argument echoes the campaigns of personalities reviled on here, such as Laurence Fox.
The court decision against non-crime hate incidents was campaigned for and won by Harry Miller, chairman of the Reclaim Party, derided as loons and nutjobs regularly on here.
Police Forces are now policed and kept in line by an offshoot of Reclaim.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Agreed. She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender. Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?
You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.
Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why
Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
You what?
What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy
Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.
are you solely responsible? is he solely responsible? are you partly to blame?
Take your time.
He is solely responsible
I feel like IshmaelZ thinks that ridiculous scenario, which is nothing whatsoever like the issue that has caused debate, is some devasting counter (and ignores the many response it has received), since it appears to be the sole basis of his argument. It's not exactly the philosophical equivalent of a full house.
His scenario didnt even make sense because a) a guy with an axe doesn't in the first place imply he is about to murder his wife just because he asks if you know where she is, may well be he has just been out chopping wood and wants to ask her if dinner is ready.
If you do have good reason to suspect he has murder in mind you would misdirect him as to her location and call the police
Excellent thread, @Cyclefree (which of course means I agree with it)! Intolerance of others views, in my opinion, is a greater long term threat to western democracy than Putin, the energy crisis, or even Brexit. I hope Sturgeon’s twitler youth don’t read it, or you will be vilified, victimised and cancelled. This seems an appropriate quote.
It's a bit facebook posting that sort of uplift as an image is it not? I mean, the fact that it looks like a religious sampler doesn't make it any more true does it? And adding But PS don't troll the muslims just for the sake of it, if you value having the use of 2 eyes would surely make it even more true?
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Agreed. She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender. Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?
You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.
Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why
Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
You what?
What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy
Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.
are you solely responsible? is he solely responsible? are you partly to blame?
Take your time.
He is solely responsible
I feel like IshmaelZ thinks that ridiculous scenario, which is nothing whatsoever like the issue that has caused debate, is some devasting counter (and ignores the many response it has received), since it appears to be the sole basis of his argument. It's not exactly the philosophical equivalent of a full house.
His scenario didnt even make sense because a) a guy with an axe doesn't in the first place imply he is about to murder his wife just because he asks if you know where she is, may well be he has just been out chopping wood and wants to ask her if dinner is ready.
If you do have good reason to suspect he has murder in mind you would misdirect him as to her location and call the police
You are getting there
Now, assuming you say (truthfully) She is in the attic, what is the moral situation?
And don't say It doesn't arise, nobody would do that. People do much worse things every day.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of Ukraine in April, 1986 people were advised to drink red wine or vodka in order to neutralize radio-active toxic effects.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of Ukraine in April, 1986 people were advised to drink red wine or vodka in order to neutralize radio-active toxic effects.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of Ukraine in April, 1986 people were advised to drink red wine or vodka in order to neutralize radio-active toxic effects.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Tbf if you're outside the immediate blast area its the first 48 hours that matter most, thats when fallout can be properly deadly, just being in any proper sealed basement gives a 200pf (reduces radiation expisure by a factor of 200). Anywhere in a brick house with no windows and as far away from outside walls and the roof as possible would give 5 to 7 pf. You can take about 350 rem before you start to become completely screwed and if youre downwind from a blast the radiation rate will start at between 10 and maybe 1000 rems per hour right under the core fallout stream a couple of km wide (youd maybe be getting 150 rems per hour initially right under this core inside an undamaged house and thus a likely lethal dose in 1 day) Radiation reduces according to the rule of 7 and 10 - after 7 hours its at 10% of initial amounts,after 49 hours 1% (so even the 1000 rems per hour is down to 10), so you'd be fairly ok inside an undamaged house by day 3 and by end of fortnight at worst trips outside ok. So its all about the first 48 hours, maximising protection and reducing exposure and then with a half decent canned good store youll survive to thoroughly enjoy life in a post nuclear subsistence economy
I don't know how to quantify how much I agree with Cyclefree here, as it is so complete and total.
Laws however are made because manners and politeness fails and because a small number of people test boundaries.
So here are three hard questions:
1) Should X have the right lawfully to go up to a black stranger in the street and say, calmly and quietly: "You are a fat ugly N- and a hateful W-. I hate all N-s and P-s and believe you should all be sent home to B- B- land".
2) Should it be lawful to stand outside the infant school playground, in an adjacent public space, and shout a stream of four letter words.
3) Should X have the law on their side if they go up to a woman in a public place and say "I am no intention of raping you but I should very much like to, I hope that's OK".
I am and old fashioned free speech liberal but have real problems with all three. Where does Cyclefree stand?
1) Harassment 2) Public Nuisance 3) Sexual Harassment
Think our current laws are broadly correct with all three scenarios and do not curtail free speech.
All noted. But your position is that free speech has to be curtailed, while denying that you are doing so by calling the curtailment by a different name. The problem is that to some people (SFAICS) having to read Thomas Hardy is some sort of harassment, as is listening to folks who don't care much for abortion and lots of other things.
Calling curtailment by a different name does not resolve the issue.
I am not absolutist about much if anything to be honest so don't see it as an issue to be in favour of freedom of speech whilst recognising that there are other competing freedoms and rights. Balance is not easy but is where we should aim, and imo is broadly where the UK law stands now, even if some are pushing for further restrictions and others for fewer.
The biggest problem I would see with UK freedom of speech currently is around libel being a tool of the ultra rich rather than people being offended.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Agreed. She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender. Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?
You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.
Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why
Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
You what?
What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy
Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.
are you solely responsible? is he solely responsible? are you partly to blame?
Take your time.
Can you suggest a mechanism for verifying the correctness of an answer?
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Agreed. She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender. Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?
You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.
Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why
Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
You what?
What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy
Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.
are you solely responsible? is he solely responsible? are you partly to blame?
Take your time.
He is solely responsible
I feel like IshmaelZ thinks that ridiculous scenario, which is nothing whatsoever like the issue that has caused debate, is some devasting counter (and ignores the many response it has received), since it appears to be the sole basis of his argument. It's not exactly the philosophical equivalent of a full house.
Most legal systems have no difficulty distinguishing between (a) aiding and abetting a crime and (a) saying something that another person considers so offensive that they will kill people over it.
What's interesting about Cyclefree's article is that its argument echoes the campaigns of personalities reviled on here, such as Laurence Fox.
The court decision against non-crime hate incidents was campaigned for and won by Harry Miller, chairman of the Reclaim Party, derided as loons and nutjobs regularly on here.
Police Forces are now policed and kept in line by an offshoot of Reclaim.
Apart from noting that free speech is what it is, and that it will be supported by a diversity of people who have a variety of competing views, some of which some people will find nuts, I am not sure what arises from this random assertion. The whole point of free speech defending is that it places you in the company of people who loudly disagree with each other. That is what free speech is for.
What's interesting about Cyclefree's article is that its argument echoes the campaigns of personalities reviled on here, such as Laurence Fox.
The court decision against non-crime hate incidents was campaigned for and won by Harry Miller, chairman of the Reclaim Party, derided as loons and nutjobs regularly on here.
Police Forces are now policed and kept in line by an offshoot of Reclaim.
I'm amazed anyone joins these days. Slaughtered by everyone left and right in the media. At the end of the day it's a hard job and I'm glad people are willing to do it.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Tbf if you're outside the immediate blast area its the first 48 hours that matter most, thats when fallout can be properly deadly, just being in any proper sealed basement gives a 200pf (reduces radiation expisure by a factor of 200). Anywhere in a brick house with no windows and as far away from outside walls and the roof as possible would give 5 to 7 pf. You can take about 350 rem before you start to become completely screwed and if youre downwind from a blast the radiation rate will start at between 10 and maybe 1000 rems per hour right under the core fallout stream a couple of km wide (youd maybe be getting 150 rems per hour initially right under this core inside an undamaged house and thus a likely lethal dose in 1 day) Radiation reduces according to the rule of 7 and 10 - after 7 hours its at 10% of initial amounts,after 49 hours 1% (so even the 1000 rems per hour is down to 10), so you'd be fairly ok inside an undamaged house by day 3 and by end of fortnight at worst trips outside ok. So its all about the first 48 hours, maximising protection and reducing exposure and then with a half decent canned good store youll survive to thoroughly enjoy life in a post nuclear subsistence economy
100 rems would start leading to radiation sickness, vomiting etc and any exposure of a few rems and up increases long term cancer risks Its bleak out there in nuke land
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
It's the price for supporting Ukraine, and a half arsed approach to renewables/net zero politicians thought they had more time for. Now the consensus is it's a price worth paying, but that is the simple truth.
What's interesting about Cyclefree's article is that its argument echoes the campaigns of personalities reviled on here, such as Laurence Fox.
The court decision against non-crime hate incidents was campaigned for and won by Harry Miller, chairman of the Reclaim Party, derided as loons and nutjobs regularly on here.
Police Forces are now policed and kept in line by an offshoot of Reclaim.
Apart from noting that free speech is what it is, and that it will be supported by a diversity of people who have a variety of competing views, some of which some people will find nuts, I am not sure what arises from this random assertion. The whole point of free speech defending is that it places you in the company of people who loudly disagree with each other. That is what free speech is for.
My point is that many people claim to love free speech whilst at the same time pouring scorn on the very people fighting for it hardest, because that is 'fashionable'.
ie Laurence Fox, Darren Grimes, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens, Claire Fox etc.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
The interesting fact is gas isn't a global market though. It's regional, good job the UK didn't start mothballing it's north sea production or we'd really be in the shit.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
It's the price for supporting Ukraine, and a half arsed approach to renewables/net zero politicians thought they had more time for. Now the consensus is it's a price worth paying, but that is the simple truth.
Yep, I'd like policitians to now say we need to full speed on any and all renewable sources.
Blanket the country with wind turbines, solar panels whatever's needed.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Agreed. She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender. Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?
You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.
Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why
Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
You what?
What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy
Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.
are you solely responsible? is he solely responsible? are you partly to blame?
Take your time.
He is solely responsible
I feel like IshmaelZ thinks that ridiculous scenario, which is nothing whatsoever like the issue that has caused debate, is some devasting counter (and ignores the many response it has received), since it appears to be the sole basis of his argument. It's not exactly the philosophical equivalent of a full house.
Well, point one, lots of useful philosophy is based on ridiculous examples, and point two, what is ridiculous about this one? Consider a German officer knocking on a Dutch door and asking for Anne Frank. You just aren't really thinking about this.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
The interesting fact is gas isn't a global market though. It's regional, good job the UK didn't start mothballing it's north sea production or we'd really be in the shit.
Is it not global? I'm aware of the European market, and also LNG from further affield.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
I notice the UK abolished tariffs on an array of products from developing countries today, surely a good thing and not possible inside the EU...?
Nothing to see here said the BBC, but I reckon it will surely make a difference over time.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
A major part of the oil price fall is that the world supply chain for oil is relatively flexible - re-routing some takers takes time and money, sure. But it is nothing compared to trying to change natural gas supply routes.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
It's the price for supporting Ukraine, and a half arsed approach to renewables/net zero politicians thought they had more time for. Now the consensus is it's a price worth paying, but that is the simple truth.
Yep, I'd like policitians to now say we need to full speed on any and all renewable sources.
Blanket the country with wind turbines, solar panels whatever's needed.
Instead we have two candidates saying precisely the opposite.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
Can we not or is it just deemed unacceptable by the current carbon orthodoxy ?
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
Im on record with Lost Password i think predicting mass civil unrest in multiple EU countries by Spring. I expect Germany to be one of those, its going to be brutal this winter in Germany, and they are talking rolling blackouts etc
I love the reference to random travel animals. But I really want to know about the personal reasons forcing one to spend 3 months in the sun.
Interesting point about traveling alone. The logic provided seems obvious, but my experience of traveling with someone is that they enrich the experience by noticing things that I miss. Perhaps I am simply particularly unobservant. Also, as social beings, we want to share our experiences with another at the time, though I suppose social media can substitute to a limited extent for that.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
It's the price for supporting Ukraine, and a half arsed approach to renewables/net zero politicians thought they had more time for. Now the consensus is it's a price worth paying, but that is the simple truth.
Yep, I'd like policitians to now say we need to full speed on any and all renewable sources.
Blanket the country with wind turbines, solar panels whatever's needed.
The only thing that could be done by next winter is to buy *all* the containerised diesel generators. You might get a few small projects for other stuff done - probably not enough to make a big difference.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
It's the price for supporting Ukraine, and a half arsed approach to renewables/net zero politicians thought they had more time for. Now the consensus is it's a price worth paying, but that is the simple truth.
Yep, I'd like policitians to now say we need to full speed on any and all renewable sources.
Blanket the country with wind turbines, solar panels whatever's needed.
Instead we have two candidates saying precisely the opposite.
I know, and they are idiots.
We should be the best placed country in the world for renewables. Plenty of waves, plenty of tides, plenty of wind.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
We will be using oil for cars for longer than that. Lots of legacy, including hybrids like mine. Plus we use oil for a lot of other things too (petrochemicals). We are making huge strides to replace it as a source of out plastic type products, but we are not there yet.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
I notice the UK abolished tariffs on an array of products from developing countries today, surely a good thing and not possible inside the EU...?
Nothing to see here said the BBC, but I reckon it will surely make a difference over time.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
The interesting fact is gas isn't a global market though. It's regional, good job the UK didn't start mothballing it's north sea production or we'd really be in the shit.
Is it not global? I'm aware of the European market, and also LNG from further affield.
We could offer a better price to a customer if they OKed our sourcing from Vietnam of a gas intensive process part which everyone happily agreed to to save cost. The gas difficulty is particular to europe I think.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
Can we not or is it just deemed unacceptable by the current carbon orthodoxy ?
Pretty sure we've got rid of all our oil power stations:
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
We are so lucky to live in such an enlightened epoch. It's not at all similar to the time of Frank Spencer and "Are You Being Served?"
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested for when you wash your hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO. Opponents of a military alliance with the USA are traitors.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
Can we not or is it just deemed unacceptable by the current carbon orthodoxy ?
It is expensive compared to many other methods of generation.
What's interesting about Cyclefree's article is that its argument echoes the campaigns of personalities reviled on here, such as Laurence Fox.
The court decision against non-crime hate incidents was campaigned for and won by Harry Miller, chairman of the Reclaim Party, derided as loons and nutjobs regularly on here.
Police Forces are now policed and kept in line by an offshoot of Reclaim.
Apart from noting that free speech is what it is, and that it will be supported by a diversity of people who have a variety of competing views, some of which some people will find nuts, I am not sure what arises from this random assertion. The whole point of free speech defending is that it places you in the company of people who loudly disagree with each other. That is what free speech is for.
My point is that many people claim to love free speech whilst at the same time pouring scorn on the very people fighting for it hardest, because that is 'fashionable'.
ie Laurence Fox, Darren Grimes, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens, Claire Fox etc.
Fair enough. Thanks. Are they being attacked over their support for free speech or some other reasons? Free speech defenders and supporters must by its nature include people who loathe each others views.
I just assume everyone is a free speech supporter unless they make it obvious they are not. And I assume that people who act as if they themselves have a right to free speech have the grace to grant it to others. Is it something the left has gone quiet about?? If so we need SKS to step up.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
It's the price for supporting Ukraine, and a half arsed approach to renewables/net zero politicians thought they had more time for. Now the consensus is it's a price worth paying, but that is the simple truth.
Yep, I'd like policitians to now say we need to full speed on any and all renewable sources.
Blanket the country with wind turbines, solar panels whatever's needed.
The only thing that could be done by next winter is to buy *all* the containerised diesel generators. You might get a few small projects for other stuff done - probably not enough to make a big difference.
Yup! Some of us have been saying for months, that diesel generators will be this winter’s gold dust.
For many business that already have them as standby power, such as data centres, they’ll likely find them cheaper to run than the mains power on cold and calm days. Expect to see them in supermarket car parks in the next few months.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
We will be using oil for cars for longer than that. Lots of legacy, including hybrids like mine. Plus we use oil for a lot of other things too (petrochemicals). We are making huge strides to replace it as a source of out plastic type products, but we are not there yet.
I talking about specifically as power. Yes, they will still be petrol cars for a long time, but it'll wane and wane.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It is an object lesson in how satire is not as easy as it looks.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
Can we not or is it just deemed unacceptable by the current carbon orthodoxy ?
It is expensive compared to many other methods of generation.
If we don't have the capability there's no point sinking capex into something that'll be obselete by the time we get any marginal benefit anyway. Just wondered if there were any old plants we could dust off for the current crisis. Seems not..
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
We will be using oil for cars for longer than that. Lots of legacy, including hybrids like mine. Plus we use oil for a lot of other things too (petrochemicals). We are making huge strides to replace it as a source of out plastic type products, but we are not there yet.
The average age of a UK car is about 8 years so it's going to be at least 15 - 20 years until there is an insignificent number of IC cars on the road. Unless there is some sort of radical regulatory change to prohibit them which is possible.
Is this really the zeitgeist cyclefree asks? The answer is yes, why even ask?
The avoidance of offence I am quite sure a lot of people think is a genuine, legal matter. So many people use a 'I believe in X, but you shouldn't be able to say Y' without even getting close to issues of discriminatory or inciting speech, or indeed issues of facing consequences for your words on a non legal basis.
As cyclefree notes the courts have, thankfully, rubbished the idea being approached by police over 'non crime hate incidents' is not a big deal, yet it is abundantly clear the police don't care, that's why it had to go to the court of appeal in the first place, as their attitude seems to be that their heart was in the right place, and who cares about what is either lawful or reasonable.
I think the point about politeness out of fear of the consequences is simply cowardice masquerading as etiquette is a very good one. I'm as guilty of it as anyone, as it is just easier and, on some issues, safer, and I think we will see more and more of it.
As to the question of whether religion or belief should be a protected characteristic or not, I confess I'm not really certain. I feel like removing it would not achieve anything or could have negative consequences. Certainly people and institutions act like things are protected characteristics which are not already, and if the zeitgeist is treating these things as inviolable, or emphasising as a matter of practicality best not to even risk it, what would really change? I feel like there are risks of not including religion or belief, even if at present we are giving too much deference.
There's any number of things you probably should not say or do to give offence, but we should feel able to offend. We should not be obliged to be deferential to the beliefs of others, yet this is not a recent thing, just look at Shirley Williams and the audience in that QT clip outraged at the idea someone caused offence to others, as if that offence is the person's fault rather than oversensitive believers.
I maintain, and I know people disagree with this conclusion, that if you cannot take mockery or comment of your faith without getting angry, then I feel like your faith is not actually that strong, because you act like a child and lash out rather than, I don't know, turning the other cheek or letting petty matters not affect your belief.
I think the bit that people missed, is that the police are attempting to create a new category of crime.
What penalty should we have for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area? What should it be for being in possession of an offensive wife?
What should be the penalty imposed upon a woman who dresses immodestly?
The penalty that is all too often imposed is that she is raped by any old wanker, who escapes conviction by insisting she consented, and get clothing choices amounted to proof she was a slut who slept with anyone. And how could the jury reasonably convict in a he-said, she-said dispute?
It's worth remembering that it is not a matter of simply defending our existing freedoms, but of extending our freedoms so that women are free to dress immodestly, and black men are free to drive fancy cars, etc.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
@rcs1000 - can we get an upgrade? This one is getting boooooring.
@Dynamo It must be very strange to face a country where the population willingly entered into an alliance without threats from inside said alliance. And I see you are emphasising Putins childish threats regarding nuclear weapons. Waving his... weapons around like that make him seem so very small. Very tiny.
EDIT - "Let me tell you one vairy funny story about putting. It was one day I play at Nijni-Novgorod with the pro. against Lenin and Trotsky, and Trotsky had a two-inch putt for the hole. But, just as he addresses the ball, someone in the crowd he tries to assassinate Lenin with a rewolwer—you know that is our great national sport, trying to assassinate Lenin with rewolwers—and the bang puts Trotsky off his stroke and he goes five yards past the hole, and then Lenin, who is rather shaken, you understand, he misses again himself, and we win the hole and match and I clean up three hundred and ninety-six thousand roubles, or fifteen shillings in your money. Some gameovitch! And now let me tell you one other vairy funny story——"
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
About 40% of a barrel of oil is used for stuff other than energy. We are no where near being able to replace that with alternatives. Your electric car still need lubricants and coolants which include oil by-products. It will contain about 10% by weight of plastic in its construction but that is about 50% by volume. Our whole life is based on the use of petrochemical products and I will repeat my old joke. If this gives you a headache then take an Asprin - it is made from petrochemical derivatives.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
Im on record with Lost Password i think predicting mass civil unrest in multiple EU countries by Spring. I expect Germany to be one of those, its going to be brutal this winter in Germany, and they are talking rolling blackouts etc
Agree with this. Definitely rolling blackouts and mass protests in Europe. Fair possibility of one or both here too, if the situation deteriorates.
In American news, Liz Cheney looks completely fecked in her primary. Her almost certain defeat will leave 2 of the 10 GOP Representatives who voted for impeachment standing - Valadao and Newsome. Trumps grip on the GOP goes on it seems.
What's interesting about Cyclefree's article is that its argument echoes the campaigns of personalities reviled on here, such as Laurence Fox.
The court decision against non-crime hate incidents was campaigned for and won by Harry Miller, chairman of the Reclaim Party, derided as loons and nutjobs regularly on here.
Police Forces are now policed and kept in line by an offshoot of Reclaim.
Apart from noting that free speech is what it is, and that it will be supported by a diversity of people who have a variety of competing views, some of which some people will find nuts, I am not sure what arises from this random assertion. The whole point of free speech defending is that it places you in the company of people who loudly disagree with each other. That is what free speech is for.
My point is that many people claim to love free speech whilst at the same time pouring scorn on the very people fighting for it hardest, because that is 'fashionable'.
ie Laurence Fox, Darren Grimes, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens, Claire Fox etc.
You can support free speech.
You can support idiots having free speech (in fact, you should).
You can even support idiots when they are defending free speech.
It doesn't follow that you have to support the same idiots in all of their idiocy
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
Im on record with Lost Password i think predicting mass civil unrest in multiple EU countries by Spring. I expect Germany to be one of those, its going to be brutal this winter in Germany, and they are talking rolling blackouts etc
Agree with this. Definitely rolling blackouts and mass protests in Europe. Fair possibility of one or both here too, if the situation deteriorates.
Oh yes im not ruling it out here by any means. I'm not a Pet Shop Boys film!
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
Can we not or is it just deemed unacceptable by the current carbon orthodoxy ?
It is expensive compared to many other methods of generation.
If we don't have the capability there's no point sinking capex into something that'll be obselete by the time we get any marginal benefit anyway. Just wondered if there were any old plants we could dust off for the current crisis. Seems not..
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
We will be using oil for cars for longer than that. Lots of legacy, including hybrids like mine. Plus we use oil for a lot of other things too (petrochemicals). We are making huge strides to replace it as a source of out plastic type products, but we are not there yet.
The average age of a UK car is about 8 years so it's going to be at least 15 - 20 years until there is an insignificent number of IC cars on the road. Unless there is some sort of radical regulatory change to prohibit them which is possible.
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
@rcs1000 - can we get an upgrade? This one is getting boooooring.
@Dynamo It must be very strange to face a country where the population willingly entered into an alliance without threats from inside said alliance. And I see you are emphasising Putins childish threats regarding nuclear weapons. Waving his... weapons around like that make him seem so very small. Very tiny.
EDIT - "Let me tell you one vairy funny story about putting. It was one day I play at Nijni-Novgorod with the pro. against Lenin and Trotsky, and Trotsky had a two-inch putt for the hole. But, just as he addresses the ball, someone in the crowd he tries to assassinate Lenin with a rewolwer—you know that is our great national sport, trying to assassinate Lenin with rewolwers—and the bang puts Trotsky off his stroke and he goes five yards past the hole, and then Lenin, who is rather shaken, you understand, he misses again himself, and we win the hole and match and I clean up three hundred and ninety-six thousand roubles, or fifteen shillings in your money. Some gameovitch! And now let me tell you one other vairy funny story——"
Really strange you should post that quote today. I am just listening to The Clicking of Cuthbert right now on Audible. Not a golfer myself and really dislike the sport but it is a sign of PG Woodhouse's great talent that he can write a whole book of short stories about the subject and I can still find it thoroughly entertaining.
In American news, Liz Cheney looks completely fecked in her primary. Her almost certain defeat will leave 2 of the 10 GOP Representatives who voted for impeachment standing - Valadao and Newsome. Trumps grip on the GOP goes on it seems.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Agreed. She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender. Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?
You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.
Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why
Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
You what?
What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy
Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.
are you solely responsible? is he solely responsible? are you partly to blame?
Take your time.
There is dual causality but none of the responsibility belongs with Rushdie.
The attackers are responsible, the Ayatollahs and Imams etc have some responsibility too, but not Rushdie, not for anyone.
Your axe example is absurd. You seem to be drawing a hypothetical as to whether aiding and abetting a murderer gives you some responsibility and the general rule normally would be if you'd done that of your own free will then yes, but doing so under coercion would normally be no, so the answer is no.
However unlike the Ayatollahs etc Rushdie never aided nor abetted even a single crime. So its moot.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
Perhaps you are more used to reading tweets?
War between the west and Russia is being encouraged under false pretences and if it happens it would soon turn nuclear.
Is that under the 140 characters?
There's probably an "I don't liiiiike this man saying such things" button somewhere for you, you big baby.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Dara I could live with because he wouldn't sneer at them for not knowing arts answers while being unable to pronounce basic scientific terms himself. Paxman exemplifies the arts is wonderful, who gives a stuff about science type that I can't stand.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Not a comedian.
Someone like Dan Snow maybe?
I think Dara could be suitably serious for the programme. As could Stephen Fry.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
Perhaps you are more used to reading tweets?
War between the west and Russia is being encouraged under false pretences and if it happens it would soon turn nuclear.
Is that under the 140 characters? There's probably an "I don't liiiiike this" button somewhere for you, you big baby.
War between the West and Russia, is being encouraged by the actions of one Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, no-one else.
If his army leaves Ukraine and goes back to Russia, there will be no war.
If he persists in trying to fight, then the rest of the world isn’t going to let up the supply of arms to the Ukranians any time soon, until there’s nothing left of the Russian army.
What's interesting about Cyclefree's article is that its argument echoes the campaigns of personalities reviled on here, such as Laurence Fox.
The court decision against non-crime hate incidents was campaigned for and won by Harry Miller, chairman of the Reclaim Party, derided as loons and nutjobs regularly on here.
Police Forces are now policed and kept in line by an offshoot of Reclaim.
Apart from noting that free speech is what it is, and that it will be supported by a diversity of people who have a variety of competing views, some of which some people will find nuts, I am not sure what arises from this random assertion. The whole point of free speech defending is that it places you in the company of people who loudly disagree with each other. That is what free speech is for.
My point is that many people claim to love free speech whilst at the same time pouring scorn on the very people fighting for it hardest, because that is 'fashionable'.
ie Laurence Fox, Darren Grimes, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens, Claire Fox etc.
You can support free speech.
You can support idiots having free speech (in fact, you should).
You can even support idiots when they are defending free speech.
It doesn't follow that you have to support the same idiots in all of their idiocy
It seems to me that nobody who is a genuine campaigner for free speech can or should be labelled an idiot. But there it is.
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The rest of the world must think us very peculiar - most countries would no more idolise their health service than they would their schools or police force.
There was an amusing Moral Maze episode on this very topic (it's still on IPlayer; look for 'The NHS at 70', I assume for licence reasons I can't link directly to it). Half the panel couldn't get past the sacred status of the health service and so almost seemed unable to understand the arguments of the other side.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Dara I could live with because he wouldn't sneer at them for not knowing arts answers while being unable to pronounce basic scientific terms himself. Paxman exemplifies the arts is wonderful, who gives a stuff about science type that I can't stand.
I always feel like a dunce through most of the arts/classics questions and am then astonished when none of the contestants gets a lot of the basic science stuff.
Questions are very much skewed towards things I don't know, though. Perhaps I am a dunce
Re-balancing would be fun for a year or two until Oxbridge recalibrated its teams as the normal Oxbridge teams of classicists would be out in the first round and engineering students from scummer poly would take the title
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
Fossil fuels are not the only product produced from oil. Until we have viable, fully scalable, options to oil we are going to need it going forward.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
they'd fit in well with some of the baiters and trolls here.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
"perhaps unwell"?
Yes. He has Parkinson's Disease. Which take it from me is an absolute bastard.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
they'd fit in well with some of the baiters and trolls here.
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The envy of the world we are told The world being so envious no other developed nation has such a system.
Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
"perhaps unwell"?
Yes. He has Parkinson's Disease. Which take it from me is an absolute bastard.
Didn't know that. That is a shame. Unlike some here it seems, I have always thought he was an excellent host.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Not a comedian.
Someone like Dan Snow maybe?
I think Dara could be suitably serious for the programme. As could Stephen Fry.
If it is a journalist then maybe Stephen Sackur?
This is the BBC. Throw merit out of the window.Consider identity.
What are the chances of Bamber and Paxo being followed by another stale pale white middle class male?
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
they'd fit in well with some of the baiters and trolls here.
Well, SeanT will be fine.
That's 500 survivors right there.
I've got some homemade ginger beer in the garage. Wonder if that will help.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
Jerry Sadowitz windmilling his disgusting shrivelled old cock in the faces of the captains.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
For a really left field choice, they might ask William Hague. But I suspect they couldn't afford him.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
What's interesting about Cyclefree's article is that its argument echoes the campaigns of personalities reviled on here, such as Laurence Fox.
The court decision against non-crime hate incidents was campaigned for and won by Harry Miller, chairman of the Reclaim Party, derided as loons and nutjobs regularly on here.
Police Forces are now policed and kept in line by an offshoot of Reclaim.
Apart from noting that free speech is what it is, and that it will be supported by a diversity of people who have a variety of competing views, some of which some people will find nuts, I am not sure what arises from this random assertion. The whole point of free speech defending is that it places you in the company of people who loudly disagree with each other. That is what free speech is for.
My point is that many people claim to love free speech whilst at the same time pouring scorn on the very people fighting for it hardest, because that is 'fashionable'.
ie Laurence Fox, Darren Grimes, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens, Claire Fox etc.
You can support free speech.
You can support idiots having free speech (in fact, you should).
You can even support idiots when they are defending free speech.
It doesn't follow that you have to support the same idiots in all of their idiocy
It seems to me that nobody who is a genuine campaigner for free speech can or should be labelled an idiot. But there it is.
Yep, to be fair none of your examples are idiots, for sure. 'Disingenuous tossers', maybe?
Great thing, free speech. I can say that, you can say they have important things to say
(and some on your list have had interesting things to say on some things, which is another reason I think it's important their free speech is preserved)
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
For a really left field choice, they might ask William Hague. But I suspect they couldn't afford him.
As for Alexander Johnson...
I've just noticed these are all men. What odds the BBC will look for a woman? In which case Sophie Raworth would surely be front runner.
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The envy of the world we are told The world being so envious no other developed nation has such a system.
Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
If The World knew that people in the UK thought that it (The World) envied the NHS, The World would no doubt laugh it's collective tits off.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Agreed. She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender. Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?
You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.
Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why
Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
You what?
What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy
Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.
are you solely responsible? is he solely responsible? are you partly to blame?
Take your time.
There is dual causality but none of the responsibility belongs with Rushdie.
The attackers are responsible, the Ayatollahs and Imams etc have some responsibility too, but not Rushdie, not for anyone.
Your axe example is absurd. You seem to be drawing a hypothetical as to whether aiding and abetting a murderer gives you some responsibility and the general rule normally would be if you'd done that of your own free will then yes, but doing so under coercion would normally be no, so the answer is no.
However unlike the Ayatollahs etc Rushdie never aided nor abetted even a single crime. So its moot.
I wouldn't blame Rushdie, obviously, for the attack on himself, but a lot of people died in SV related riots. If that was foreseeable, and if Rushdie was not coerced into writing the SV, then the answer is yes, not no.
There's also a clear distinction between speech to advance debate on a genuine moral issue like say affirmative action, or abortion, and speech which is mere trolling intended not to argue a case but to provoke an emotion. There's an argument to be had about the likelihood of God dictating stuff to an Arab peasant in a cave, but there's things you can say about that peasant which are simply trolling. Now, it may be that such trolling should be protected under the free speech umbrella, but the more pure trolling it is the more blameworthy the troller is for innocent third party deaths caused by it.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Comments
I hope Sturgeon’s twitler youth don’t read it, or you will be vilified, victimised and cancelled.
This seems an appropriate quote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-62491750
Seriously: if the axeman has an axe and expresses the intention of killing his wife, you think the informant has no moral responsibility at all? Seriously?
The court decision against non-crime hate incidents was campaigned for and won by Harry Miller, chairman of the Reclaim Party, derided as loons and nutjobs regularly on here.
Police Forces are now policed and kept in line by an offshoot of Reclaim.
If you do have good reason to suspect he has murder in mind you would misdirect him as to her location and call the police
Now, assuming you say (truthfully) She is in the attic, what is the moral situation?
And don't say It doesn't arise, nobody would do that. People do much worse things every day.
*Unpacks the morning's delivery from the Wine Society*
Yikes.
Radiation reduces according to the rule of 7 and 10 - after 7 hours its at 10% of initial amounts,after 49 hours 1% (so even the 1000 rems per hour is down to 10), so you'd be fairly ok inside an undamaged house by day 3 and by end of fortnight at worst trips outside ok.
So its all about the first 48 hours, maximising protection and reducing exposure and then with a half decent canned good store youll survive to thoroughly enjoy life in a post nuclear subsistence economy
The biggest problem I would see with UK freedom of speech currently is around libel being a tool of the ultra rich rather than people being offended.
Bloody slow, sorry.
Its bleak out there in nuke land
ie Laurence Fox, Darren Grimes, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens, Claire Fox etc.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
Blanket the country with wind turbines, solar panels whatever's needed.
I notice the UK abolished tariffs on an array of products from developing countries today, surely a good thing and not possible inside the EU...?
Nothing to see here said the BBC, but I reckon it will surely make a difference over time.
We should be the best placed country in the world for renewables. Plenty of waves, plenty of tides, plenty of wind.
Plus we use oil for a lot of other things too (petrochemicals). We are making huge strides to replace it as a source of out plastic type products, but we are not there yet.
The gas difficulty is particular to europe I think.
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
currently 0%.
I mean we could build new ones, we 'could' build new coal mines and coal power stations too. But I expect it's a very very bad idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6U9T3R3EQg
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
We are so lucky to live in such an enlightened epoch. It's not at all similar to the time of Frank Spencer and "Are You Being Served?"
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested for when you wash your hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO. Opponents of a military alliance with the USA are traitors.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
1 The NHS
2 Our history
3 The Royal family
https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1559497777952051210?s=20&t=KIvuzJKzEyEWfVU2BAKhfg
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/08/16/britons-dont-have-confidence-johnson-sunak-or-trus
I just assume everyone is a free speech supporter unless they make it obvious they are not. And I assume that people who act as if they themselves have a right to free speech have the grace to grant it to others. Is it something the left has gone quiet about?? If so we need SKS to step up.
For many business that already have them as standby power, such as data centres, they’ll likely find them cheaper to run than the mains power on cold and calm days. Expect to see them in supermarket car parks in the next few months.
NHS-creaking at the seams
our history- built on empire and slavery
Royal family- a bunch of inbreds.
Wow....I'm really being cynical today aren't I... sigh, sign of the times.
Seems not..
It's worth remembering that it is not a matter of simply defending our existing freedoms, but of extending our freedoms so that women are free to dress immodestly, and black men are free to drive fancy cars, etc.
@Dynamo It must be very strange to face a country where the population willingly entered into an alliance without threats from inside said alliance. And I see you are emphasising Putins childish threats regarding nuclear weapons. Waving his... weapons around like that make him seem so very small. Very tiny.
EDIT - "Let me tell you one vairy funny story about putting. It was one day I play at Nijni-Novgorod with the pro. against Lenin and Trotsky, and Trotsky had a two-inch putt for the hole. But, just as he addresses the ball, someone in the crowd he tries to assassinate Lenin with a rewolwer—you know that is our great national sport, trying to assassinate Lenin with rewolwers—and the bang puts Trotsky off his stroke and he goes five yards past the hole, and then Lenin, who is rather shaken, you understand, he misses again himself, and we win the hole and match and I clean up three hundred and ninety-six thousand roubles, or fifteen shillings in your money. Some gameovitch! And now let me tell you one other vairy funny story——"
You can support idiots having free speech (in fact, you should).
You can even support idiots when they are defending free speech.
It doesn't follow that you have to support the same idiots in all of their idiocy
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawley_Power_Station
Someone like Dan Snow maybe?
The attackers are responsible, the Ayatollahs and Imams etc have some responsibility too, but not Rushdie, not for anyone.
Your axe example is absurd. You seem to be drawing a hypothetical as to whether aiding and abetting a murderer gives you some responsibility and the general rule normally would be if you'd done that of your own free will then yes, but doing so under coercion would normally be no, so the answer is no.
However unlike the Ayatollahs etc Rushdie never aided nor abetted even a single crime. So its moot.
War between the west and Russia is being encouraged under false pretences and if it happens it would soon turn nuclear.
Is that under the 140 characters?
There's probably an "I don't liiiiike this man saying such things" button somewhere for you, you big baby.
If it is a journalist then maybe Stephen Sackur?
If his army leaves Ukraine and goes back to Russia, there will be no war.
If he persists in trying to fight, then the rest of the world isn’t going to let up the supply of arms to the Ukranians any time soon, until there’s nothing left of the Russian army.
It seems to me that nobody who is a genuine campaigner for free speech can or should be labelled an idiot. But there it is.
There was an amusing Moral Maze episode on this very topic (it's still on IPlayer; look for 'The NHS at 70', I assume for licence reasons I can't link directly to it). Half the panel couldn't get past the sacred status of the health service and so almost seemed unable to understand the arguments of the other side.
Questions are very much skewed towards things I don't know, though. Perhaps I am a dunce
Re-balancing would be fun for a year or two until Oxbridge recalibrated its teams as the normal Oxbridge teams of classicists would be out in the first round and engineering students from scummer poly would take the title
Fossil fuels are not the only product produced from oil. Until we have viable, fully scalable, options to oil we are going to need it going forward.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Yes. He has Parkinson's Disease. Which take it from me is an absolute bastard.
That's 500 survivors right there.
Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
What are the chances of Bamber and Paxo being followed by another stale pale white middle class male?
As for Alexander Johnson...
Great thing, free speech. I can say that, you can say they have important things to say
(and some on your list have had interesting things to say on some things, which is another reason I think it's important their free speech is preserved)
There's also a clear distinction between speech to advance debate on a genuine moral issue like say affirmative action, or abortion, and speech which is mere trolling intended not to argue a case but to provoke an emotion. There's an argument to be had about the likelihood of God dictating stuff to an Arab peasant in a cave, but there's things you can say about that peasant which are simply trolling. Now, it may be that such trolling should be protected under the free speech umbrella, but the more pure trolling it is the more blameworthy the troller is for innocent third party deaths caused by it.
Victoria Coren Mitchell?
Naga Munchetty?