People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
Yep. I tend to see royalism a bit the same as religion, ie not my cup of tea but whatever floats your boat just as long as you DON’T FECKING EVANGELISE. The present spasm seems towards the cultish ends of things, and of course the monarchy and how it expresses itself is entwined with the way we’re governed whether we like it or not.
I think other PBers should understand that this is a uniquely difficult week for republican Scottish nationalists. Sturgeon singing GSTK and pledging to uphold the Protestant religion...ouch.
I don't think it is difficult for them at all. With the exception of a few extremists both the Nats and the Republicans have understood that the best way to advance their cause is to allow Monarchists and Unionists to have their time of grief for the old Monarch and happiness for the new one. No one (with the exception of the terminally thick like Dynamo and Dura) enjoys seeing people grieving, even if they may not share that grief or necessarily agree with it. Sturgeon wants to represent all of the people of Scotland - and we know that around about 50% of them are Unionists and a large majority of them were very fond of the Queen. So she represents them in her actions even if, after a suitable period, she returns to her political beliefs of independence and republicanism.
I think that, on the whole, Republicans and Scots Nationalists have done their cause no harm at all by showing understanding and compassion.
Could be wrong, but I don't think Sturgeon is a republican. Unlike Alba and the Greens, the SNP want to keep the monarchy
I think it's a particulary English view to think of support for the monarchy in binary Y/N terms.
Pretty sure Salmond is more monarchist than Sturgeon, in any case he seems very possessive of his connection to HMQ.
Salmond is certainly still pro monarchy even if most of his party aren't
You're talking nonsense again. Probably muddling the SNP with the Scottish Greens [edited - excellent, you have acknowledged their existence for once, in another post]. The SNP is a formally pro-monarchy party.
The influential 79 Group were Republican though, weren’t they? and Salmond was a leading figure in the 79 Group.
That was a long time ago (it ceased in 1982). Rather longer ago than, say, Ms Truss and her republicanism. He certainly changed his tune in recent decades.
I understand that Alba is explicitly republican…?
If you mean by explicitly that some of its noisy online supporters go on about it rather than being an official policy, I guess so. The influence that a party on % and with no elected (on an Alba ticket) reps has should not be underestimated..
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
Yep. I tend to see royalism a bit the same as religion, ie not my cup of tea but whatever floats your boat just as long as you DON’T FECKING EVANGELISE. The present spasm seems towards the cultish ends of things, and of course the monarchy and how it expresses itself is entwined with the way we’re governed whether we like it or not.
I think other PBers should understand that this is a uniquely difficult week for republican Scottish nationalists. Sturgeon singing GSTK and pledging to uphold the Protestant religion...ouch.
I don't think it is difficult for them at all. With the exception of a few extremists both the Nats and the Republicans have understood that the best way to advance their cause is to allow Monarchists and Unionists to have their time of grief for the old Monarch and happiness for the new one. No one (with the exception of the terminally thick like Dynamo and Dura) enjoys seeing people grieving, even if they may not share that grief or necessarily agree with it. Sturgeon wants to represent all of the people of Scotland - and we know that around about 50% of them are Unionists and a large majority of them were very fond of the Queen. So she represents them in her actions even if, after a suitable period, she returns to her political beliefs of independence and republicanism.
I think that, on the whole, Republicans and Scots Nationalists have done their cause no harm at all by showing understanding and compassion.
Could be wrong, but I don't think Sturgeon is a republican. Unlike Alba and the Greens, the SNP want to keep the monarchy
I think it's a particulary English view to think of support for the monarchy in binary Y/N terms.
Pretty sure Salmond is more monarchist than Sturgeon, in any case he seems very possessive of his connection to HMQ.
Salmond is certainly still pro monarchy even if most of his party aren't
You're talking nonsense again. Probably muddling the SNP with the Scottish Greens [edited - excellent, you have acknowledged their existence for once, in another post]. The SNP is a formally pro-monarchy party.
The influential 79 Group were Republican though, weren’t they? and Salmond was a leading figure in the 79 Group.
That was a long time ago (it ceased in 1982). Rather longer ago than, say, Ms Truss and her republicanism. He certainly changed his tune in recent decades.
I understand that Alba is explicitly republican…?
If you mean by explicitly that some of its noisy online supporters go on about it rather than being an official policy, I guess so. The influence that a party polling less than 3% and with no elected (on an Alba ticket) reps has should not be underestimated..
I think our PB Tories are confusing them with Mr Farage and UKIP, in terms of their relationship with the respective parent party. Though that's not to say that the comparison mightn't one say become relevant.
The ban doesn't bother me. Nor is the US the only country I'm banned from. It isn't a country I'd plan to visit, although if I were to be allowed to go there and did actually want to, it would be NYC that I'd stay in. Every film I've seen based in NYC (probably about 60% of the ones I've seen set in the US) plays crudely on a contrast between two different parts of the city. If the Bronx is shown, it's almost always by depicting young Hispanic lads playing basketball behind a high wire fence on a housing scheme. Really toe-curling stereotyping. Doubtless they think they've moved on from depicting Mexico in early films by showing a sombrero on a wall and playing a soundtrack of a cicada, but have they? :-) In some films there's contrast between the city and upstate NY boondocks or between the city and some ultra-nobby place on Long Island. Bow Bridge in Central Park is almost always featured. Brooklyn Bridge over the East River is literally always featured, in the films I've watched anyway. The various boroughs are always represented the same way: Brooklyn as full of young small business types running twee retail operations, with perhaps a few retired well-heeled types living in mansions; Queens as like a big version of an Aldi supermarket. The other contrast that often features is between NYC as a "European" or "Anglo" city where people pronounce or spell words in what's seen as an English way, and the rest of the US. Such a highly limited range of references, but I'm sure NYC is much more interesting in real life than its depiction in films. Central Park has the other Cleopatra's Needle. Did you know NYC is named after the slaveowning Duke of York (he used to have his slaves branded "DY") who became king James III? It's not "woke" to want it renamed. The name simply breaks the "don't commemorate perpetrators of crimes against humanity" rule.
James III ???? who he?
James III of Scotland died in 1488 - well over a century before the Dutch established themselves on the tip of Manhattan. There was no James III of England or Great Britain, except in the minds of the Old Pretender's supporters - but James Francis Edward, the son of James II of England, was never appointed Duke of York.
New York was named after James, a younger son of Charles I and Henrietta Maria: appointed Duke of York at birth in 1633 and granted much of the American East Coast in 1664 by his older brother Charles II. On the death of Charles in 1685, the then Duke of York assumed the throne as James II of England and James VII of Scotland. James II then lost the throne in 1688, but descendants living in Catholic Europe claimed the throne until 1807. Off topic, the most bizarre relic of the century of Pretension is the chapel housing the tomb of Henry Benedict Stuart, known in the Vatican as Cardinal Duke of York, in Rome's Santa Maria in Trastevere. Almost surreally, the chapel's entrance is crowned with Henry Stuart's coat of arms as cardinal - essentially the British monarch's - though no foreign power supported his claims to the throne
Technically, James III and VIII was the son of James II and VII, but he was more usually called the 'Old Pretender.'
One reason why it was thought Charles might not take the regnal name 'Charles' is because the Young Pretender styled himself 'Charles III.'
Even better was his brother - Henry IX. That's the only time a British regnal name (of any constituent country) has made it past no. 8.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Look the remaining Caribbean realms are going to be republics, probably without even a referendum like Barbados. The best we can hope for is they stay in the Commonwealth.
It may be possible Australia and Canada and New Zealand keep King Charles, even pro Republic leaders there like Albanese will only do so with a referendum and the top politicians in Canada are monarchists. However it is not realistic for the Caribbean states to continue to have a white British head of state
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
Also a formal policy is needed to justify and guide public decision making, e.g. on cycle paths and playing fields, as well as school funding for different activities.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
Redwood: 'Look Liz, when I was talking about cutting fat, I didn't mean cut the anti-fat campaigns!'
This is where deregulation always hits the rocks.
There are three big stakeholder groups in modern capitalism: business owners, labour, and the consumer. Both main parties sometimes give the impression of ignoring the third group and obsessing about the other two. It’s a bit 19th century.
Most regulation is in place to protect the consumer. Sometimes this goes too far - the annoying data consent pop ups on the internet being one example - but most of the time it is pretty popular.
By and large a deregulated market means crapper food, dirtier air and water, less wildlife, more food poisoning, flakier infrastructure, riskier financial services, more risk of being taken for a ride by cowboys and more likelihood your personal data will be sold to the highest and most unscrupulous bidder.
At its best deregulation makes things cheaper. The best examples of that in the last couple of decades have been in telecoms and energy. But of course we are now seeing the flip side of deregulated energy markets.
A political party ignores consumers at its peril.
Nobody is going to suffer from lack of the Government telling them to eat less. It's a huge waste of money.
Isn't there an argument for some public information at least? Many are incredibly ignorance about food science. I recall a conversation not long ago with someone justifying a lot of fried food who said it wasn't particularly high fat. He denied, and as far as I know still does, that oil is a form of fat.
Can your acquaintance not just be directed to the existing nutritional information label on the bottle of oil?
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
Redwood: 'Look Liz, when I was talking about cutting fat, I didn't mean cut the anti-fat campaigns!'
This is where deregulation always hits the rocks.
There are three big stakeholder groups in modern capitalism: business owners, labour, and the consumer. Both main parties sometimes give the impression of ignoring the third group and obsessing about the other two. It’s a bit 19th century.
Most regulation is in place to protect the consumer. Sometimes this goes too far - the annoying data consent pop ups on the internet being one example - but most of the time it is pretty popular.
By and large a deregulated market means crapper food, dirtier air and water, less wildlife, more food poisoning, flakier infrastructure, riskier financial services, more risk of being taken for a ride by cowboys and more likelihood your personal data will be sold to the highest and most unscrupulous bidder.
At its best deregulation makes things cheaper. The best examples of that in the last couple of decades have been in telecoms and energy. But of course we are now seeing the flip side of deregulated energy markets.
A political party ignores consumers at its peril.
Nobody is going to suffer from lack of the Government telling them to eat less. It's a huge waste of money.
Isn't there an argument for some public information at least? Many are incredibly ignorance about food science. I recall a conversation not long ago with someone justifying a lot of fried food who said it wasn't particularly high fat. He denied, and as far as I know still does, that oil is a form of fat.
Can your acquaintance not just be directed to the existing nutritional information label on the bottle of oil?
Even that information had to be required by law, as I recall.
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
Yep. I tend to see royalism a bit the same as religion, ie not my cup of tea but whatever floats your boat just as long as you DON’T FECKING EVANGELISE. The present spasm seems towards the cultish ends of things, and of course the monarchy and how it expresses itself is entwined with the way we’re governed whether we like it or not.
I think other PBers should understand that this is a uniquely difficult week for republican Scottish nationalists. Sturgeon singing GSTK and pledging to uphold the Protestant religion...ouch.
I don't think it is difficult for them at all. With the exception of a few extremists both the Nats and the Republicans have understood that the best way to advance their cause is to allow Monarchists and Unionists to have their time of grief for the old Monarch and happiness for the new one. No one (with the exception of the terminally thick like Dynamo and Dura) enjoys seeing people grieving, even if they may not share that grief or necessarily agree with it. Sturgeon wants to represent all of the people of Scotland - and we know that around about 50% of them are Unionists and a large majority of them were very fond of the Queen. So she represents them in her actions even if, after a suitable period, she returns to her political beliefs of independence and republicanism.
I think that, on the whole, Republicans and Scots Nationalists have done their cause no harm at all by showing understanding and compassion.
Could be wrong, but I don't think Sturgeon is a republican. Unlike Alba and the Greens, the SNP want to keep the monarchy
I think it's a particulary English view to think of support for the monarchy in binary Y/N terms.
Pretty sure Salmond is more monarchist than Sturgeon, in any case he seems very possessive of his connection to HMQ.
Salmond is certainly still pro monarchy even if most of his party aren't
You're talking nonsense again. Probably muddling the SNP with the Scottish Greens [edited - excellent, you have acknowledged their existence for once, in another post]. The SNP is a formally pro-monarchy party.
The influential 79 Group were Republican though, weren’t they? and Salmond was a leading figure in the 79 Group.
That was a long time ago (it ceased in 1982). Rather longer ago than, say, Ms Truss and her republicanism. He certainly changed his tune in recent decades.
I understand that Alba is explicitly republican…?
If you mean by explicitly that some of its noisy online supporters go on about it rather than being an official policy, I guess so. The influence that a party polling less than 3% and with no elected (on an Alba ticket) reps has should not be underestimated..
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
Redwood: 'Look Liz, when I was talking about cutting fat, I didn't mean cut the anti-fat campaigns!'
This is where deregulation always hits the rocks.
There are three big stakeholder groups in modern capitalism: business owners, labour, and the consumer. Both main parties sometimes give the impression of ignoring the third group and obsessing about the other two. It’s a bit 19th century.
Most regulation is in place to protect the consumer. Sometimes this goes too far - the annoying data consent pop ups on the internet being one example - but most of the time it is pretty popular.
By and large a deregulated market means crapper food, dirtier air and water, less wildlife, more food poisoning, flakier infrastructure, riskier financial services, more risk of being taken for a ride by cowboys and more likelihood your personal data will be sold to the highest and most unscrupulous bidder.
At its best deregulation makes things cheaper. The best examples of that in the last couple of decades have been in telecoms and energy. But of course we are now seeing the flip side of deregulated energy markets.
A political party ignores consumers at its peril.
Nobody is going to suffer from lack of the Government telling them to eat less. It's a huge waste of money.
Isn't there an argument for some public information at least? Many are incredibly ignorance about food science. I recall a conversation not long ago with someone justifying a lot of fried food who said it wasn't particularly high fat. He denied, and as far as I know still does, that oil is a form of fat.
Can your acquaintance not just be directed to the existing nutritional information label on the bottle of oil?
Free speech is under attack because the left only care about it when people with left-wing opinions are being affected, and people with right-wing opinions only care about it when people with right-wing opinions are being affected by it. Until they both learn to stand up for free speech in all circumstances there's going to be a problem defending it. The protestors complaining about someone being arrested for holding up a sign saying something like "end the monarchy" wouldn't be bothered by someone being arrested if they were holding a sign saying "no more immigration", and vice versa.
But the current argument is the police are allowing the "no more immigration " guy his opportunity to speak freely. Fantastic! Yet, on the other hand they are arresting anti-monarchists and (earlier) Sarah Everard supporters.
By the way - anyone encountered the modern attempts at calorie-free (or almost free) "sugar"? I thought they all tasted yuck but I've been pleasantly surprised by a couple (Brown Shuga and Sukrin Gold). Damned expensive though. Anyone know of any cheaper alternatives?
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
I need to check this but I think, by law, Counsellors of State include the Sovereign’s spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21.
If that's so then King Charles can't change it unless the law changes. The problem otherwise resolves itself as George and Charlotte, Louis reach maturity, which will happen progressively over the next 17 years.
As someone who is technically 'obese' but is not noticeably 'fat'; I find the normalisation of obesity very annoying. It isn't a good path to be going on. Having the 'calories counted' in food when eating out is helpful. I would find it annoying if these changes get rolled back. I would actually see it as a concession to the 'woke' / 'fat studies' crowd, rather than any sort of progress against the 'nanny state' or 'deregulation of business'.
Indeed accurate labelling so people know what they are getting is a key part of a functioning free market.
One of the pending items in the "new" government's in-tray is a Defra consultation on mandatory labelling of means of production of meat (e.g. chicken), so people can make informed choices between factory farms and others - it looks really good and to some extent makes up for the lack of restrictions on low-standard imports (since if properly informed, consumers can decide). They've done an extensive call for evidence about it and the next step is due to be consultation next year. Wil lthe new team proceed with it? We don't yet know.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Look the remaining Caribbean realms are going to be republics, probably without even a referendum like Barbados. The best we can hope for is they stay in the Commonwealth.
It may be possible Australia and Canada and New Zealand keep King Charles, even pro Republic leaders there like Albanese will only do so with a referendum and the top politicians in Canada are monarchists. However it is not realistic for the Caribbean states to continue to have a white British head of state
Barbados is by far the most British of the independent Caribbean countries - to the extent that it gets called Little England in the region. With Barbados now a Republic it is indeed hard to see Jamaica et al retaining the monarch as head of state.
Free speech is under attack because the left only care about it when people with left-wing opinions are being affected, and people with right-wing opinions only care about it when people with right-wing opinions are being affected by it. Until they both learn to stand up for free speech in all circumstances there's going to be a problem defending it. The protestors complaining about someone being arrested for holding up a sign saying something like "end the monarchy" wouldn't be bothered by someone being arrested if they were holding a sign saying "no more immigration", and vice versa.
But the current argument is the police are allowing the "no more immigration " guy his opportunity to speak freely. Fantastic! Yet, on the other hand they are arresting anti-monarchists and (earlier) Sarah Everard supporters.
What is sauce for the goose etc...
The Sarah Everard issue was at the height of the pandemic, and thus out of the ordinary. However this country needs to agree what is free speech, when and how it might be restricted, and when not. There have always been limits of free speech. Classically shouting fire in a crowded building could imperil lives.
We seem to have stumbled to a position where opinions that might offend are somehow not allowed. Who decided that? Who voted for the law that enacts police to arrest someone for such an offence?
And of course free is speech defenders need to defend it for all sides, not just the opinions of those you agree with. And that’s were ‘woke’ is most dangerous. Woke defines the world into right and wrong. Why is ‘people of colour’ correct but ‘coloured people wrong’?
I need to check this but I think, by law, Counsellors of State include the Sovereign’s spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21.
If that's so then King Charles can't change it unless the law changes. The problem otherwise resolves itself as George and Charlotte, Louis reach maturity, which will happen progressively over the next 17 years.
The other catch, however, with the act as originally framed is that it was the next four *in the UK* who met the criteria.
I'm not sure whether that provision still holds good. If it does, than as Harry isn't in the UK much of the time then it promotes Eugenie as well.
I have to say I think it could be very easily resolved by a simple amendment along the lines of the one that enabled Philip to be regent if the Queen died before Charles was 21. Promoting Anne and Edward on the grounds that Harry lives abroad and Andrew doesn't undertake Royal duties would solve the problem, and while wouldn't look good the alternatives look considerably worse.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
It's not so much that the health officials are wanting more on health but that they are focussing on this area in particular. There are good reasons for that. They're not focussing on, say, the risk of being stung by Portuguese Men o'War (real as that is on occasion in the south west).
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Look the remaining Caribbean realms are going to be republics, probably without even a referendum like Barbados. The best we can hope for is they stay in the Commonwealth.
It may be possible Australia and Canada and New Zealand keep King Charles, even pro Republic leaders there like Albanese will only do so with a referendum and the top politicians in Canada are monarchists. However it is not realistic for the Caribbean states to continue to have a white British head of state
Their parties usually have consensus on making the change too (and as I bang on about Jamaica, they've stated the intention many times over the last 15 years). Its happening sooner or later. With a new monarch bump some others might take longer to reach that stage.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
There were government interventions on obesity in the 1990s. The Conservative Govt in 1991, for example, made tackling obesity a priority. That was 31 years ago.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Ah, I remember the days of that government camapign not to be fat. 'Fit for life', was it called? I remember being greatly irritated by being patronised at my own expense. Seems such a low level annoyance compared to the massive state overreach of the last few years.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
I was against the move upon hearing it, but that's a good point.
I need to check this but I think, by law, Counsellors of State include the Sovereign’s spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21.
If that's so then King Charles can't change it unless the law changes. The problem otherwise resolves itself as George and Charlotte, Louis reach maturity, which will happen progressively over the next 17 years.
Correct, but there's a further step in the recipe; counsellors of State are merely candidates for receiving letters patent from the sovereign which activate their superpowers, so the trick is simply not to address them to Andrew.
Everybody's second favourite geordie after Gazza, Fiona Hill, has an excellent article in Foreign Policy on VVP's motivation and the wider conflict. Seek it out via the paywall busting site of your choice.
Briefly, VVP holds that the current extent of the Russian Federation is an incomplete aberration that's Lenin's fault. There is no Russia that does not include Ukraine so the SMO is as existential for Russia as it is for Ukraine. Also, the West underestimates the pragmatic durability of the Russia-China relationship.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm increasingly reminded of the Victorian arguments about food adulteration - how it should be permitted for the free market to put chalk in bread, psychotropic nuts in beer, arsenic on wallpaper, and so on, because it was a legitimate business strategy, and it was up to the consumer to choose. Some of the modern over-processed foods come very close to adulteration in my view.
I need to check this but I think, by law, Counsellors of State include the Sovereign’s spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21.
If that's so then King Charles can't change it unless the law changes. The problem otherwise resolves itself as George and Charlotte, Louis reach maturity, which will happen progressively over the next 17 years.
Prince Andrew could renounce his position in the line of succession. (He’d be replaced by Eugenie.)
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
The state has a responsibility to safeguarding children and that's where it should start. And we do a bit (more than some countries), but not enough, on childhood obesity. There's a reason we ban kids from driving, smoking and drinking. Yet you can still walk into a school canteen, pick up a deep pan pizza with an inch of cheese on top, have some chips on the side and follow up with a chocolate brownie then pop to the school shop in the afternoon for a cheese toastie.
Greece, Italy, Cyprus and several others around the med, disaster zone. Countries with the supposed mediterranean lifestyle and diet. Also countries where government provision in early years and school education has collapsed since the financial crisis. On the other hand France, the Nordics, the Baltic states: countries where state provision in healthcare and education has been and continues to be comprehensive and well funded, and school meals are regulated, all doing fine.
Look at the stats for countries like Mexico or South Africa to see the result of complete government inaction on young people's nutrition.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
I was against the move upon hearing it, but that's a good point.
It would be a good point were it not inaccurate on every point made.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm increasingly reminded of the Victorian arguments about food adulteration - how it should be permitted for the free market to put chalk in bread, psychotropic nuts in beer, arsenic on wallpaper, and so on, because it was a legitimate business strategy, and it was up to the consumer to choose. Some of the modern over-processed foods come very close to adulteration in my view.
My grandmother born about 1900 used to be very keen her grandchildren should not eat green colour sweets because arsenic was the colouring agent. Cannot believe this was true at any stage during her lifetime.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I need to check this but I think, by law, Counsellors of State include the Sovereign’s spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21.
If that's so then King Charles can't change it unless the law changes. The problem otherwise resolves itself as George and Charlotte, Louis reach maturity, which will happen progressively over the next 17 years.
Prince Andrew could renounce his position in the line of succession. (He’d be replaced by Eugenie.)
In a neat twofer he could find God (RC version) and disqualify himself that way.
Free speech is under attack because the left only care about it when people with left-wing opinions are being affected, and people with right-wing opinions only care about it when people with right-wing opinions are being affected by it. Until they both learn to stand up for free speech in all circumstances there's going to be a problem defending it. The protestors complaining about someone being arrested for holding up a sign saying something like "end the monarchy" wouldn't be bothered by someone being arrested if they were holding a sign saying "no more immigration", and vice versa.
But the current argument is the police are allowing the "no more immigration " guy his opportunity to speak freely. Fantastic! Yet, on the other hand they are arresting anti-monarchists and (earlier) Sarah Everard supporters.
What is sauce for the goose etc...
The Sarah Everard issue was at the height of the pandemic, and thus out of the ordinary. However this country needs to agree what is free speech, when and how it might be restricted, and when not. There have always been limits of free speech. Classically shouting fire in a crowded building could imperil lives.
We seem to have stumbled to a position where opinions that might offend are somehow not allowed. Who decided that? Who voted for the law that enacts police to arrest someone for such an offence?
And of course free is speech defenders need to defend it for all sides, not just the opinions of those you agree with. And that’s were ‘woke’ is most dangerous. Woke defines the world into right and wrong. Why is ‘people of colour’ correct but ‘coloured people wrong’?
Your last paragraph is a sideshow (and I am not sure actually correct) from my point about police inconsistency.
You define "woke" (I am quite unsure myself of what it means, although I have regularly been accused on here of being one) as people who label issues as "right and (or) wrong". But don't those on the right and far right of politics also allow their objectivity to be compromised by their prejudice, thus labelling issues "right and wrong". In that case whether woke or anti woke, they are all as bad as each other.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
The state has a responsibility to safeguarding children and that's where it should start. And we do a bit (more than some countries), but not enough, on childhood obesity. There's a reason we ban kids from driving, smoking and drinking. Yet you can still walk into a school canteen, pick up a deep pan pizza with an inch of cheese on top, have some chips on the side and follow up with a chocolate brownie then pop to the school shop in the afternoon for a cheese toastie.
Greece, Italy, Cyprus and several others around the med, disaster zone. Countries with the supposed mediterranean lifestyle and diet. Also countries where government provision in early years and school education has collapsed since the financial crisis. On the other hand France, the Nordics, the Baltic states: countries where state provision in healthcare and education has been and continues to be comprehensive and well funded, and school meals are regulated, all doing fine.
Look at the stats for countries like Mexico or South Africa to see the result of complete government inaction on young people's nutrition.
What, like Mexico introducing a soda tax in 2014 among other measures over the last few years.
Everybody's second favourite geordie after Gazza, Fiona Hill, has an excellent article in Foreign Policy on VVP's motivation and the wider conflict. Seek it out via the paywall busting site of your choice.
Briefly, VVP holds that the current extent of the Russian Federation is an incomplete aberration that's Lenin's fault. There is no Russia that does not include Ukraine so the SMO is as existential for Russia as it is for Ukraine. Also, the West underestimates the pragmatic durability of the Russia-China relationship.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm increasingly reminded of the Victorian arguments about food adulteration - how it should be permitted for the free market to put chalk in bread, psychotropic nuts in beer, arsenic on wallpaper, and so on, because it was a legitimate business strategy, and it was up to the consumer to choose. Some of the modern over-processed foods come very close to adulteration in my view.
My grandmother born about 1900 used to be very keen her grandchildren should not eat green colour sweets because arsenic was the colouring agent. Cannot believe this was true at any stage during her lifetime.
It shouldn't have happened after 1870 or so, but her mother might have followed that as a precautionary principle becasue of the incompetence of backstreet sweet makers (possibly confounded also with arsenic wallpaper).
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm increasingly reminded of the Victorian arguments about food adulteration - how it should be permitted for the free market to put chalk in bread, psychotropic nuts in beer, arsenic on wallpaper, and so on, because it was a legitimate business strategy, and it was up to the consumer to choose. Some of the modern over-processed foods come very close to adulteration in my view.
My grandmother born about 1900 used to be very keen her grandchildren should not eat green colour sweets because arsenic was the colouring agent. Cannot believe this was true at any stage during her lifetime.
Finally some joined up thinking from the government. With a bit more blubber on us, surely that will reduce our need for heating over the winter as well as reduce future pension payments.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
I was against the move upon hearing it, but that's a good point.
Doubt the cause and effect loop is that quick or that simple. After all, obesity is a cumulative thing over years.
We don't even know if it has/hasn't worked, since that could only be done by comparing real UK with doppelganger UK without the last 30 years of campaigning. After all, people's everyday lifestyles are less active (more cars) and involve more food. Perhaps the anti-obesity measures of recent decades have stopped things getting worse (e.g. America) but are insufficient.
And obesity costs us all. It's obvious with an NHS system, but any "bottom line, nobody misses out on vital treatment for lack of money" system will have the same challenge. Public health is boring, nannying, and costs money which is easy to chop without instant disaster. But there will come a time when you really regret it's absence.
Free speech is under attack because the left only care about it when people with left-wing opinions are being affected, and people with right-wing opinions only care about it when people with right-wing opinions are being affected by it. Until they both learn to stand up for free speech in all circumstances there's going to be a problem defending it. The protestors complaining about someone being arrested for holding up a sign saying something like "end the monarchy" wouldn't be bothered by someone being arrested if they were holding a sign saying "no more immigration", and vice versa.
But the current argument is the police are allowing the "no more immigration " guy his opportunity to speak freely. Fantastic! Yet, on the other hand they are arresting anti-monarchists and (earlier) Sarah Everard supporters.
What is sauce for the goose etc...
The Sarah Everard issue was at the height of the pandemic, and thus out of the ordinary. However this country needs to agree what is free speech, when and how it might be restricted, and when not. There have always been limits of free speech. Classically shouting fire in a crowded building could imperil lives.
We seem to have stumbled to a position where opinions that might offend are somehow not allowed. Who decided that? Who voted for the law that enacts police to arrest someone for such an offence?
And of course free is speech defenders need to defend it for all sides, not just the opinions of those you agree with. And that’s were ‘woke’ is most dangerous. Woke defines the world into right and wrong. Why is ‘people of colour’ correct but ‘coloured people wrong’?
Your last paragraph is a sideshow (and I am not sure actually correct) from my point about police inconsistency.
You define "woke" (I am quite unsure myself of what it means, although I have regularly been accused on here of being one) as people who label issues as "right and (or) wrong". But don't those on the right and far right of politics also allow their objectivity to be compromised by their prejudice, thus labelling issues "right and wrong". In that case whether woke or anti woke, they are all as bad as each other.
Yes, on reflection I was wrong to assign 'woke' as most dangerous - it should be equally regarded as you say. I do worry about those who try to restrict free speech to only those who agree with them, and that is a very 'woke' trend.
I think it is. A 5% tightening of the lead after the 6% tightening (or 8% vs LLG) in the other poll. Could tighten a bit more because the past YG was a bit of an outlier. This now has LLG at 59% which is still at the top end of recent trends. Before the final days of Boris we were in the LLG 54-57% range, it then extended to 59-62% during the hiatus and the fears over gas prices. Now with the energy announcement it's on its way back to the longer term trend.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
I was against the move upon hearing it, but that's a good point.
Doubt the cause and effect loop is that quick or that simple. After all, obesity is a cumulative thing over years.
We don't even know if it has/hasn't worked, since that could only be done by comparing real UK with doppelganger UK without the last 30 years of campaigning. After all, people's everyday lifestyles are less active (more cars) and involve more food. Perhaps the anti-obesity measures of recent decades have stopped things getting worse (e.g. America) but are insufficient.
And obesity costs us all. It's obvious with an NHS system, but any "bottom line, nobody misses out on vital treatment for lack of money" system will have the same challenge. Public health is boring, nannying, and costs money which is easy to chop without instant disaster. But there will come a time when you really regret it's absence.
Wasn't Mr Johnson a convert after his covid (which is one of the things that interacts badly with obesity)? He was proclaiming action in, what was it, June 2020? But not much seems to have happened.
Free speech is under attack because the left only care about it when people with left-wing opinions are being affected, and people with right-wing opinions only care about it when people with right-wing opinions are being affected by it. Until they both learn to stand up for free speech in all circumstances there's going to be a problem defending it. The protestors complaining about someone being arrested for holding up a sign saying something like "end the monarchy" wouldn't be bothered by someone being arrested if they were holding a sign saying "no more immigration", and vice versa.
But the current argument is the police are allowing the "no more immigration " guy his opportunity to speak freely. Fantastic! Yet, on the other hand they are arresting anti-monarchists and (earlier) Sarah Everard supporters.
What is sauce for the goose etc...
The Sarah Everard issue was at the height of the pandemic, and thus out of the ordinary. However this country needs to agree what is free speech, when and how it might be restricted, and when not. There have always been limits of free speech. Classically shouting fire in a crowded building could imperil lives.
We seem to have stumbled to a position where opinions that might offend are somehow not allowed. Who decided that? Who voted for the law that enacts police to arrest someone for such an offence?
And of course free is speech defenders need to defend it for all sides, not just the opinions of those you agree with. And that’s were ‘woke’ is most dangerous. Woke defines the world into right and wrong. Why is ‘people of colour’ correct but ‘coloured people wrong’?
Your last paragraph is a sideshow (and I am not sure actually correct) from my point about police inconsistency.
You define "woke" (I am quite unsure myself of what it means, although I have regularly been accused on here of being one) as people who label issues as "right and (or) wrong". But don't those on the right and far right of politics also allow their objectivity to be compromised by their prejudice, thus labelling issues "right and wrong". In that case whether woke or anti woke, they are all as bad as each other.
Yes, on reflection I was wrong to assign 'woke' as most dangerous - it should be equally regarded as you say. I do worry about those who try to restrict free speech to only those who agree with them, and that is a very 'woke' trend.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
The state has a responsibility to safeguarding children and that's where it should start. And we do a bit (more than some countries), but not enough, on childhood obesity. There's a reason we ban kids from driving, smoking and drinking. Yet you can still walk into a school canteen, pick up a deep pan pizza with an inch of cheese on top, have some chips on the side and follow up with a chocolate brownie then pop to the school shop in the afternoon for a cheese toastie.
Greece, Italy, Cyprus and several others around the med, disaster zone. Countries with the supposed mediterranean lifestyle and diet. Also countries where government provision in early years and school education has collapsed since the financial crisis. On the other hand France, the Nordics, the Baltic states: countries where state provision in healthcare and education has been and continues to be comprehensive and well funded, and school meals are regulated, all doing fine.
Look at the stats for countries like Mexico or South Africa to see the result of complete government inaction on young people's nutrition.
What, like Mexico introducing a soda tax in 2014 among other measures over the last few years.
Precisely because things have got to such a pretty pass. Hopefully it will stop or at least slow down the rot. But the issue is like the med countries they have a very weak central state, poorly funded public services including education, and in Mexico's case of course a vast mass-producer of the most unhealthy food on the planet along their Northern border.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Visited my daughter at her student digs in Oxford on Saturday. Great day sightseeing and drinking too much coffee but we dropped by one of the colleges to learn that tours were cancelled out of respect for the Queen. Quite why it would be disrespectful to tour the college as opposed to stuff we did instead is puzzling. Would the Queen have minded?
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
Plus customer costs incurred in booking locally for one night in some other hotels, which probably thought their Christmas had come early and jacked up the price the moment they realised ... and meals too (or at least the excess price)>
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
Yep. I tend to see royalism a bit the same as religion, ie not my cup of tea but whatever floats your boat just as long as you DON’T FECKING EVANGELISE. The present spasm seems towards the cultish ends of things, and of course the monarchy and how it expresses itself is entwined with the way we’re governed whether we like it or not.
I think other PBers should understand that this is a uniquely difficult week for republican Scottish nationalists. Sturgeon singing GSTK and pledging to uphold the Protestant religion...ouch.
I don't think it is difficult for them at all. With the exception of a few extremists both the Nats and the Republicans have understood that the best way to advance their cause is to allow Monarchists and Unionists to have their time of grief for the old Monarch and happiness for the new one. No one (with the exception of the terminally thick like Dynamo and Dura) enjoys seeing people grieving, even if they may not share that grief or necessarily agree with it. Sturgeon wants to represent all of the people of Scotland - and we know that around about 50% of them are Unionists and a large majority of them were very fond of the Queen. So she represents them in her actions even if, after a suitable period, she returns to her political beliefs of independence and republicanism.
I think that, on the whole, Republicans and Scots Nationalists have done their cause no harm at all by showing understanding and compassion.
Could be wrong, but I don't think Sturgeon is a republican. Unlike Alba and the Greens, the SNP want to keep the monarchy
I think it's a particulary English view to think of support for the monarchy in binary Y/N terms.
Pretty sure Salmond is more monarchist than Sturgeon, in any case he seems very possessive of his connection to HMQ.
Salmond is certainly still pro monarchy even if most of his party aren't
You're talking nonsense again. Probably muddling the SNP with the Scottish Greens [edited - excellent, you have acknowledged their existence for once, in another post]. The SNP is a formally pro-monarchy party.
The influential 79 Group were Republican though, weren’t they? and Salmond was a leading figure in the 79 Group.
That was a long time ago (it ceased in 1982). Rather longer ago than, say, Ms Truss and her republicanism. He certainly changed his tune in recent decades.
I understand that Alba is explicitly republican…?
If you mean by explicitly that some of its noisy online supporters go on about it rather than being an official policy, I guess so. The influence that a party polling less than 3% and with no elected (on an Alba ticket) reps has should not be underestimated..
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
I was against the move upon hearing it, but that's a good point.
Doubt the cause and effect loop is that quick or that simple. After all, obesity is a cumulative thing over years.
We don't even know if it has/hasn't worked, since that could only be done by comparing real UK with doppelganger UK without the last 30 years of campaigning. After all, people's everyday lifestyles are less active (more cars) and involve more food. Perhaps the anti-obesity measures of recent decades have stopped things getting worse (e.g. America) but are insufficient.
And obesity costs us all. It's obvious with an NHS system, but any "bottom line, nobody misses out on vital treatment for lack of money" system will have the same challenge. Public health is boring, nannying, and costs money which is easy to chop without instant disaster. But there will come a time when you really regret it's absence.
There are ways around that - interrupted time series, diff in diff, even regression discontinuity where interventions are targeted on some threshold scoring at the individual level (e.g. GP referral to programmes at paritcular BMI). There are studies out there showing effective interventions, although the effects tend to be quite modest.
Some possible issues with the counterfactual in that there was also a lot of publicity about the sugar levy, which may have itself increased awareness and changed behaviours, outwith the effects of the levy itself
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Visited my daughter at her student digs in Oxford on Saturday. Great day sightseeing and drinking too much coffee but we dropped by one of the colleges to learn that tours were cancelled out of respect for the Queen. Quite why it would be disrespectful to tour the college as opposed to stuff we did instead is puzzling. Would the Queen have minded?
The problem is going to be in part the legal bank holiday, which dumps additional costs on businesses (bank holiday pay, time off in lieu). Some things have to be done (meals for college residents) but others can be trimmed (tours).
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
Technically it would be 'going down the rabbit hole' but that now means something a bit different.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
I was against the move upon hearing it, but that's a good point.
Doubt the cause and effect loop is that quick or that simple. After all, obesity is a cumulative thing over years.
We don't even know if it has/hasn't worked, since that could only be done by comparing real UK with doppelganger UK without the last 30 years of campaigning. After all, people's everyday lifestyles are less active (more cars) and involve more food. Perhaps the anti-obesity measures of recent decades have stopped things getting worse (e.g. America) but are insufficient.
And obesity costs us all. It's obvious with an NHS system, but any "bottom line, nobody misses out on vital treatment for lack of money" system will have the same challenge. Public health is boring, nannying, and costs money which is easy to chop without instant disaster. But there will come a time when you really regret it's absence.
Wasn't Mr Johnson a convert after his covid (which is one of the things that interacts badly with obesity)? He was proclaiming action in, what was it, June 2020? But not much seems to have happened.
Yes, though some of it goes back earlier - he was pretty good on active travel as Mayor. That may be another bit of his legacy that gets binned to keep Maily Telegraph types onside.
Everybody's second favourite geordie after Gazza, Fiona Hill, has an excellent article in Foreign Policy on VVP's motivation and the wider conflict. Seek it out via the paywall busting site of your choice.
Briefly, VVP holds that the current extent of the Russian Federation is an incomplete aberration that's Lenin's fault. There is no Russia that does not include Ukraine so the SMO is as existential for Russia as it is for Ukraine. Also, the West underestimates the pragmatic durability of the Russia-China relationship.
Lol, when Fiona turns up with tins, a chicken and a fishing rod you know you're in deep shit.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
Plus customer costs incurred in booking locally for one night in some other hotels, which probably thought their Christmas had come early and jacked up the price the moment they realised ... and meals too (or at least the excess price)>
So it would be disrespectful to the Queen to stay at Centreparcs but not at a hotel outside of Centreparcs. I'm finding this corporate virtue-signalling very tiresome.
Free speech is under attack because the left only care about it when people with left-wing opinions are being affected, and people with right-wing opinions only care about it when people with right-wing opinions are being affected by it. Until they both learn to stand up for free speech in all circumstances there's going to be a problem defending it. The protestors complaining about someone being arrested for holding up a sign saying something like "end the monarchy" wouldn't be bothered by someone being arrested if they were holding a sign saying "no more immigration", and vice versa.
But the current argument is the police are allowing the "no more immigration " guy his opportunity to speak freely. Fantastic! Yet, on the other hand they are arresting anti-monarchists and (earlier) Sarah Everard supporters.
What is sauce for the goose etc...
The Sarah Everard issue was at the height of the pandemic, and thus out of the ordinary. However this country needs to agree what is free speech, when and how it might be restricted, and when not. There have always been limits of free speech. Classically shouting fire in a crowded building could imperil lives.
We seem to have stumbled to a position where opinions that might offend are somehow not allowed. Who decided that? Who voted for the law that enacts police to arrest someone for such an offence?
And of course free is speech defenders need to defend it for all sides, not just the opinions of those you agree with. And that’s were ‘woke’ is most dangerous. Woke defines the world into right and wrong. Why is ‘people of colour’ correct but ‘coloured people wrong’?
Your last paragraph is a sideshow (and I am not sure actually correct) from my point about police inconsistency.
You define "woke" (I am quite unsure myself of what it means, although I have regularly been accused on here of being one) as people who label issues as "right and (or) wrong". But don't those on the right and far right of politics also allow their objectivity to be compromised by their prejudice, thus labelling issues "right and wrong". In that case whether woke or anti woke, they are all as bad as each other.
Yes, on reflection I was wrong to assign 'woke' as most dangerous - it should be equally regarded as you say. I do worry about those who try to restrict free speech to only those who agree with them, and that is a very 'woke' trend.
Like the police?
This week yes. However it is the police officers on the ground interpreting what they have been told to do.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Look the remaining Caribbean realms are going to be republics, probably without even a referendum like Barbados. The best we can hope for is they stay in the Commonwealth.
It may be possible Australia and Canada and New Zealand keep King Charles, even pro Republic leaders there like Albanese will only do so with a referendum and the top politicians in Canada are monarchists. However it is not realistic for the Caribbean states to continue to have a white British head of state
Yes that’s surely right
Canada, NZ, PNG and probably Oz will likely stay monarchies. Black “British” Caribbean countries will mostly go republic, tho a referendum might spring a surprise in one or two
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
The state has a responsibility to safeguarding children and that's where it should start. And we do a bit (more than some countries), but not enough, on childhood obesity. There's a reason we ban kids from driving, smoking and drinking. Yet you can still walk into a school canteen, pick up a deep pan pizza with an inch of cheese on top, have some chips on the side and follow up with a chocolate brownie then pop to the school shop in the afternoon for a cheese toastie.
Greece, Italy, Cyprus and several others around the med, disaster zone. Countries with the supposed mediterranean lifestyle and diet. Also countries where government provision in early years and school education has collapsed since the financial crisis. On the other hand France, the Nordics, the Baltic states: countries where state provision in healthcare and education has been and continues to be comprehensive and well funded, and school meals are regulated, all doing fine.
Look at the stats for countries like Mexico or South Africa to see the result of complete government inaction on young people's nutrition.
What, like Mexico introducing a soda tax in 2014 among other measures over the last few years.
Precisely because things have got to such a pretty pass. Hopefully it will stop or at least slow down the rot. But the issue is like the med countries they have a very weak central state, poorly funded public services including education, and in Mexico's case of course a vast mass-producer of the most unhealthy food on the planet along their Northern border.
Its been in place 8 years. Plenty time to work
You claimed Mexico did nothing. That’s not true.
In the U.K. childhood obesity is high relative to adult obesity due to a change in how it was measured. This article links to the graph. Do we really believe when kids become adults they suddenly become less obese.
Everybody's second favourite geordie after Gazza, Fiona Hill, has an excellent article in Foreign Policy on VVP's motivation and the wider conflict. Seek it out via the paywall busting site of your choice.
Briefly, VVP holds that the current extent of the Russian Federation is an incomplete aberration that's Lenin's fault. There is no Russia that does not include Ukraine so the SMO is as existential for Russia as it is for Ukraine. Also, the West underestimates the pragmatic durability of the Russia-China relationship.
Well Russia is going to fail in its existential conflict then.
Hopefully Russia breaks up into constituent provinces, but more likely Putin will be replaced with someone who accepts Russia's place in the world doesn't include Ukraine anymore.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm increasingly reminded of the Victorian arguments about food adulteration - how it should be permitted for the free market to put chalk in bread, psychotropic nuts in beer, arsenic on wallpaper, and so on, because it was a legitimate business strategy, and it was up to the consumer to choose. Some of the modern over-processed foods come very close to adulteration in my view.
My grandmother born about 1900 used to be very keen her grandchildren should not eat green colour sweets because arsenic was the colouring agent. Cannot believe this was true at any stage during her lifetime.
Might be a faulty memory on your grandmothers part. The Arsenic Act, and the 1868 Pharmacy Act were were passed partly due to the 1858, Bradford poisoning where arsenic trioxide was used instead of sugar in some sweets, which then sold from a stall in Bradford market.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
They were allowing cancellations with no penalty at least. It seems to have been a stupid decision, however it also seems that at this time of year most of their custom is friday to monday or monday to friday (i.e. we are out of the week long stay period). At least that's what I glean from their statement about most people not being affected.
However it is not realistic for the Caribbean states to continue to have a white British head of state
Charles (#notmyking) is a direct descendent of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) isn't he?
Or is that just one those things that arseholes who watch QI say that isn't really true?
He might be, but it's not probable (and it would be pretty indirect). It requires several leaps of logic to cover a few gaps. Like the even dafter claims that George III's wife was mostly African based on how she looks in one portrait if you shine a particular light on it.
In any case, it would be so far back as to be meaningless.
So, the latter. In common with almost everything on QI.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Visited my daughter at her student digs in Oxford on Saturday. Great day sightseeing and drinking too much coffee but we dropped by one of the colleges to learn that tours were cancelled out of respect for the Queen. Quite why it would be disrespectful to tour the college as opposed to stuff we did instead is puzzling. Would the Queen have minded?
I'm remembering the media's outrage at people enjoying themselves at the beach during spring 2020, and I think organisations are terrified of a photo of people enjoying themselves on their premises during the period of mourning finding its way into the newspapers.
As an example of how fear of imagined social pressure leads to self-policing I think it would be hard to beat.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
Plus customer costs incurred in booking locally for one night in some other hotels, which probably thought their Christmas had come early and jacked up the price the moment they realised ... and meals too (or at least the excess price)>
So it would be disrespectful to the Queen to stay at Centreparcs but not at a hotel outside of Centreparcs. I'm finding this corporate virtue-signalling very tiresome.
I'm not sure it's about respect per se, rather allowing staff to watch the funeral. However, I am sure most organisations could find enough employees who couldn't care less to staff the day.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
I was against the move upon hearing it, but that's a good point.
Doubt the cause and effect loop is that quick or that simple. After all, obesity is a cumulative thing over years.
We don't even know if it has/hasn't worked, since that could only be done by comparing real UK with doppelganger UK without the last 30 years of campaigning. After all, people's everyday lifestyles are less active (more cars) and involve more food. Perhaps the anti-obesity measures of recent decades have stopped things getting worse (e.g. America) but are insufficient.
And obesity costs us all. It's obvious with an NHS system, but any "bottom line, nobody misses out on vital treatment for lack of money" system will have the same challenge. Public health is boring, nannying, and costs money which is easy to chop without instant disaster. But there will come a time when you really regret it's absence.
I suspect it is at least as much down to activity as diet and I put a lot of the blame on a car based lifestyle. When I lived somewhere that was totally car dependent I definitely put on weight. When we lived in the US - ground zero for fat people - I lost weight - because we didn't have a car. Go out of London (where car usage is well below the national average) and the number of obese people is something that never fails to shock me. Cars, bad sleep habits, fast food and fizzy drinks are the main culprits I think, in that order.
However it is not realistic for the Caribbean states to continue to have a white British head of state
Charles (#notmyking) is a direct descendent of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) isn't he?
Or is that just one those things that arseholes who watch QI say that isn't really true?
It is almost certainly the case that everyone is. Also Charlemagne, Nero*, and anyone else from over 1000 years ago who had descendants.
There is a slight nuance here that there will be some people whose descendants genuinely all stayed in one place. So while it is certainly the case that if you pick random Anglo Saxon who had descendants 1000 years ago, if you are British, you are probably descended from him, as is everyone else British. But if you pick random Australian aboriginal from 1000 years ago that may well not be true. But for Mohammed, who had all sorts of descendents, many of whom fanned out across Europe and Asia, probably pretty much everyone British can count him as an ancestor.
*Name plucked out of the air. I don't actually know if he had descendants.
For balance, here's Charles talking to the Sinn Fein leadership - suggests a deftness which for me outweighs any irritation about leaky pens. They're very good too.
New Hampshire Primary 2022 note that most town that have reported have little left to count HOWEVER many towns have yet to report any results
Republican for US Senate
Updated 24m ago 82% REPORTED Donald Bolduc 46,343 37.0% Chuck Morse 45,073 36.0% Kevin Smith 14,703 11.7% Total reported 125,337
Too close to call but MAGA-maniac still leading over NH GOP establishment pick; incumbent US Sen. Maggie Hassan renominated easily in Dem primary
Republican for US House District 1
Updated 30m ago 89% REPORTED Karoline Leavitt 23,813 34.6% Matt Mowers 17,389 25.3% Gail Huff Brown 12,090 17.6% Total reported 68,748
In battle of former Trump administration officials, Leavitt out-MAGA's Mower, will face incumbent Chris Pappas, unopposed in Dem primary, in this highly marginal district.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
Superb fact I unearthed in the Wiki entry for Papua New Guinea and the monarchy
Colloquially, the former Queen was referred to as "Misis Kwin" (Mrs Queen) and as "Mama belong big family" in the creole language of Tok Pisin.[2] Prior to ascending the throne, the then Prince Charles was referred to in Tok Pisin as "Nambawan pikinini bilong Misis Kwin" (The first child of Mrs Queen)”
Also, the British monarchy is hugely popular there. Zero desire for a republic
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Look the remaining Caribbean realms are going to be republics, probably without even a referendum like Barbados. The best we can hope for is they stay in the Commonwealth.
It may be possible Australia and Canada and New Zealand keep King Charles, even pro Republic leaders there like Albanese will only do so with a referendum and the top politicians in Canada are monarchists. However it is not realistic for the Caribbean states to continue to have a white British head of state
I don't accept that only a white British head of state can represent white people and only a black one black people. That is divisive identity politics and it simply isn't true. The local governor-general exercises duties locally and is now, by convention, a national of the realm concerned and the monarchy gives it the profile, links and unity with the wider family of realms that it would otherwise not have.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
Let's ask again in a year's time. Quite meaningless at this point.
Not “meaningless” for those who argue that HMQEII’s death would trigger a republic.
Well, it might. It just hasn't triggered it at once.
However, that wasn't going to happen anyway unless Charles and the whole royal family were all massacred a la the Romanovs the minute before she snuffed it.
I think the expectation was Charles was so divisive and would make so many mistakes that stripped of his mother's personal popularity the momentum for a republic would be unstoppable after a few years.
That always struck me as rather wishful thinking but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
Plus customer costs incurred in booking locally for one night in some other hotels, which probably thought their Christmas had come early and jacked up the price the moment they realised ... and meals too (or at least the excess price)>
So it would be disrespectful to the Queen to stay at Centreparcs but not at a hotel outside of Centreparcs. I'm finding this corporate virtue-signalling very tiresome.
I'm not sure it's about respect per se, rather allowing staff to watch the funeral. However, I am sure most organisations could find enough employees who couldn't care less to staff the day.
Somebody at the organisation probably got pissed off that this was an unscheduled Bank Holiday and that they couldn't charge customers more for staying over a Bank Holiday weekend like they normally would, but might have to pay staff more for working on a Bank Holiday.
Centerparcs is not closed on Bank Holidays, having a holiday resort closed over holidays would rather defeat their purpose, but they do jack the price up.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
Technically it would be 'going down the rabbit hole' but that now means something a bit different.
I think you're confusing Lewis Carroll and Kelvin MacKenzie
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm increasingly reminded of the Victorian arguments about food adulteration - how it should be permitted for the free market to put chalk in bread, psychotropic nuts in beer, arsenic on wallpaper, and so on, because it was a legitimate business strategy, and it was up to the consumer to choose. Some of the modern over-processed foods come very close to adulteration in my view.
My grandmother born about 1900 used to be very keen her grandchildren should not eat green colour sweets because arsenic was the colouring agent. Cannot believe this was true at any stage during her lifetime.
Might be a faulty memory on your grandmothers part. The Arsenic Act, and the 1868 Pharmacy Act were were passed partly due to the 1858, Bradford poisoning where arsenic trioxide was used instead of sugar in some sweets, which then sold from a stall in Bradford market.
Intersting fact is that arsenic trioxide is a superb treatment for acute promyelocytic leukemia (front-line in USA I think). There are tantalising suggestions that APML patients may have experienced some level of recovery with arsenic treatment in the 19th century, but it only came into formal use in the last 30 years or so.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
Technically it would be 'going down the rabbit hole' but that now means something a bit different.
I think you're confusing Lewis Carroll and Kelvin MacKenzie
One was somebody who creepily delighted in naked pictures of young girls.
And the other...
....was the editor of the Sun.
(Be honest, you were wondering how I was going to end that, weren't you?)
Comments
One reason why it was thought Charles might not take the regnal name 'Charles' is because the Young Pretender styled himself 'Charles III.'
Even better was his brother - Henry IX. That's the only time a British regnal name (of any constituent country) has made it past no. 8.
I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't getting a lot of sleep, either.
It may be possible Australia and Canada and New Zealand keep King Charles, even pro Republic leaders there like Albanese will only do so with a referendum and the top politicians in Canada are monarchists. However it is not realistic for the Caribbean states to continue to have a white British head of state
What is sauce for the goose etc...
If that's so then King Charles can't change it unless the law changes. The problem otherwise resolves itself as George and Charlotte, Louis reach maturity, which will happen progressively over the next 17 years.
However this country needs to agree what is free speech, when and how it might be restricted, and when not. There have always been limits of free speech. Classically shouting fire in a crowded building could imperil lives.
We seem to have stumbled to a position where opinions that might offend are somehow not allowed. Who decided that? Who voted for the law that enacts police to arrest someone for such an offence?
And of course free is speech defenders need to defend it for all sides, not just the opinions of those you agree with. And that’s were ‘woke’ is most dangerous. Woke defines the world into right and wrong. Why is ‘people of colour’ correct but ‘coloured people wrong’?
I'm not sure whether that provision still holds good. If it does, than as Harry isn't in the UK much of the time then it promotes Eugenie as well.
I have to say I think it could be very easily resolved by a simple amendment along the lines of the one that enabled Philip to be regent if the Queen died before Charles was 21. Promoting Anne and Edward on the grounds that Harry lives abroad and Andrew doesn't undertake Royal duties would solve the problem, and while wouldn't look good the alternatives look considerably worse.
Many policy interventions to reduce obesity work (examples in https://www.healthactioncampaign.org.uk/assets/documents/international-childhood-obesit ). It’s the most libertarian country in the OECD, the US, which has the highest obesity in the OECD.
Obesity has a huge impact on health, which costs the country money. Diabetes costs the NHS about £10 billion per year, and most of that is related to obesity. Prevention programmes here work: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2022/03/nhs-prevention-programme-cuts-chances-of-type-2-diabetes-for-thousands/
Briefly, VVP holds that the current extent of the Russian Federation is an incomplete aberration that's Lenin's fault. There is no Russia that does not include Ukraine so the SMO is as existential for Russia as it is for Ukraine. Also, the West underestimates the pragmatic durability of the Russia-China relationship.
Perhaps those beach body ready ads should have been approved after all, instead of buckling to the complaints of the over-sensitive.
A scan over childhood obesity statistics across Europe shows the direct correlation with government nutrition policies in education. https://www.statista.com/chart/17839/childhood-obesity-rates-europe-who/
Greece, Italy, Cyprus and several others around the med, disaster zone. Countries with the supposed mediterranean lifestyle and diet. Also countries where government provision in early years and school education has collapsed since the financial crisis. On the other hand France, the Nordics, the Baltic states: countries where state provision in healthcare and education has been and continues to be comprehensive and well funded, and school meals are regulated, all doing fine.
Look at the stats for countries like Mexico or South Africa to see the result of complete government inaction on young people's nutrition.
Lab 42% -2
Con 32% +3
Lib Dem 10% ±0
Green 7% ±0
Reform 2% -1
(Change since 6-7 Sep) https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569957808371793920/photo/1
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
You define "woke" (I am quite unsure myself of what it means, although I have regularly been accused on here of being one) as people who label issues as "right and (or) wrong". But don't those on the right and far right of politics also allow their objectivity to be compromised by their prejudice, thus labelling issues "right and wrong". In that case whether woke or anti woke, they are all as bad as each other.
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1311
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Dying-for-Humbug-the-Bradford-Sweets-Poisoning-1858/
Ironically partly caused by, er, high sugar taxes!
We don't even know if it has/hasn't worked, since that could only be done by comparing real UK with doppelganger UK without the last 30 years of campaigning. After all, people's everyday lifestyles are less active (more cars) and involve more food. Perhaps the anti-obesity measures of recent decades have stopped things getting worse (e.g. America) but are insufficient.
And obesity costs us all. It's obvious with an NHS system, but any "bottom line, nobody misses out on vital treatment for lack of money" system will have the same challenge. Public health is boring, nannying, and costs money which is easy to chop without instant disaster. But there will come a time when you really regret it's absence.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=32&LAB=42&LIB=10&Reform=2&Green=7&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=19.1&SCOTLAB=23.9&SCOTLIB=8&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=0&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=44.9&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/13/apathy-in-new-zealand-but-little-desire-for-change-as-king-charless-reign-begins
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_ferret
Edit to add a few examples (not read in detail and not endorsed):
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n254.long
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003915&dm_i=6LRU,H18S,1PXXB0,22OIE,1
Some possible issues with the counterfactual in that there was also a lot of publicity about the sugar levy, which may have itself increased awareness and changed behaviours, outwith the effects of the levy itself
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Or is that just one those things that arseholes who watch QI say that isn't really true?
Canada, NZ, PNG and probably Oz will likely stay monarchies. Black “British” Caribbean countries will mostly go republic, tho a referendum might spring a surprise in one or two
You claimed Mexico did nothing. That’s not true.
In the U.K. childhood obesity is high relative to adult obesity due to a change in how it was measured. This article links to the graph. Do we really believe when kids become adults they suddenly become less obese.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-myth-of-childhood-obesity/
Do you believe the online ad ban which its proponents claim will remove 4 whole calories a day at best on average is a worthwhile endeavour ?
Hopefully Russia breaks up into constituent provinces, but more likely Putin will be replaced with someone who accepts Russia's place in the world doesn't include Ukraine anymore.
But, I think that works both ways.
In any case, it would be so far back as to be meaningless.
So, the latter. In common with almost everything on QI.
https://twitter.com/planetjedward/status/1569812138830737411
As an example of how fear of imagined social pressure leads to self-policing I think it would be hard to beat.
There is a slight nuance here that there will be some people whose descendants genuinely all stayed in one place. So while it is certainly the case that if you pick random Anglo Saxon who had descendants 1000 years ago, if you are British, you are probably descended from him, as is everyone else British. But if you pick random Australian aboriginal from 1000 years ago that may well not be true. But for Mohammed, who had all sorts of descendents, many of whom fanned out across Europe and Asia, probably pretty much everyone British can count him as an ancestor.
*Name plucked out of the air. I don't actually know if he had descendants.
https://twitter.com/ciaranmartinoxf/status/1569730314804797440
See Adam Rutherford's 'A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived'
note that most town that have reported have little left to count HOWEVER many towns have yet to report any results
Republican for US Senate
Updated 24m ago
82% REPORTED
Donald Bolduc
46,343 37.0%
Chuck Morse
45,073 36.0%
Kevin Smith
14,703 11.7%
Total reported
125,337
Too close to call but MAGA-maniac still leading over NH GOP establishment pick; incumbent US Sen. Maggie Hassan renominated easily in Dem primary
Republican for US House District 1
Updated 30m ago
89% REPORTED
Karoline Leavitt
23,813 34.6%
Matt Mowers
17,389 25.3%
Gail Huff Brown
12,090 17.6%
Total reported
68,748
In battle of former Trump administration officials, Leavitt out-MAGA's Mower, will face incumbent Chris Pappas, unopposed in Dem primary, in this highly marginal district.
Colloquially, the former Queen was referred to as "Misis Kwin" (Mrs Queen) and as "Mama belong big family" in the creole language of Tok Pisin.[2] Prior to ascending the throne, the then Prince Charles was referred to in Tok Pisin as "Nambawan pikinini bilong Misis Kwin" (The first child of Mrs Queen)”
Also, the British monarchy is hugely popular there. Zero desire for a republic
And it's not clear what Jamaica would do. This poll is barely 10 years old, and it wasn’t close: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/world/2011/06/29/most_residents_think_jamaica_better_off_as_a_british_colony_poll_suggests.html
Would you prefer to shop in:
1) Imperial Measures
2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures
3) There is no third option….
However, that wasn't going to happen anyway unless Charles and the whole royal family were all massacred a la the Romanovs the minute before she snuffed it.
I think the expectation was Charles was so divisive and would make so many mistakes that stripped of his mother's personal popularity the momentum for a republic would be unstoppable after a few years.
That always struck me as rather wishful thinking but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.
Centerparcs is not closed on Bank Holidays, having a holiday resort closed over holidays would rather defeat their purpose, but they do jack the price up.
And the other...
....was the editor of the Sun.
(Be honest, you were wondering how I was going to end that, weren't you?)