I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
The problem with the trans debate is that it's not any real transgender people that are the problem.
It's the fact some people with ulterior motives are "pretending" to be trans to achieve their motives and many trans people don't see the issue.
Well, that and the fact the backlash may make it hard or impossible for trans people to be trans. I'm concerned that's going to be a very real evil that comes out of all this trans-bashing.
I'd also disagree that no 'real' (*) transgender people are the problem: suffering does not engender nobility, and it's perfectly possible for a trans person to be an abuser. Just as it is possible for your neighbour, or a doctor. Or a teacher. Or social workers. Or a gay or lesbian, for that matter.
(*) What is a 'real' trans person? Someone who had the op twenty years ago and has been living as their new identity for all that period? Someone who is living in that identity pre-op? A transvestite? Someone like Eddie Izzard?
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
It’s a reaction to the “your papers, please” that we all grew up with in the movies.
In most European countries you are expected to carry on you documentation that proves who you are, should you be stopped. In Britain, we are not.
I wouldn’t trust a future Labour government with our traditional liberties, for more than a second.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
One possible answer is that the people who stand to profit financially from implementing them want them.
Ok, but I'm talking about amongst the public. The thesis is that many people who don't care about illegal immigration nevertheless support ID cards.
The French interior ministry estimates that they have 900,000 undocumented migrants in France, so ID cards are clearly not a panacea in the way that some people think.
Yes, but that's because they're all at Calais waiting to get on boats to England.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
It’s a reaction to the “your papers, please” that we all grew up with in the movies.
In most European countries you are expected to carry on you documentation that proves who you are, should you be stopped. In Britain, we are not.
I wouldn’t trust a future Labour government with our traditional liberties, for more than a second.
In the interests of balance I wouldn't trust a Tory one either. I don't think any Government, whether I support them or not, should have that sort of power.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
The only proposal that interests those making proposals, is the super linked database that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in officialdom can access.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Different people have different issues. I resent the principle of an ID card. In essence out boils down to the government records being more important than my physical existence and testimony.
Now, to a certain extent this is the case already, but still I struggle against further moves in this direction. I don't like needing pieces of paper to prove that I exist, and that I am who I say I am.
Yes, I know your feelings on this one. When I included in my bigger post "the more philosophical sentiment that a free human being should not have to prove who they are" it was you I had in mind.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
It’s a reaction to the “your papers, please” that we all grew up with in the movies.
In most European countries you are expected to carry on you documentation that proves who you are, should you be stopped. In Britain, we are not.
I wouldn’t trust a future Labour government with our traditional liberties, for more than a second.
In the interests of balance I wouldn't trust a Tory one either. I don't think any Government, whether I support them or not, should have that sort of power.
Agreed. Although I do think that some Tories at least (cf. D Davies) have an instinctive understanding of the issue, whereas most Labour politicians do not - as ex-MP Nick’s posts on here do tend to exemplify. Labour will always put ends before means; their fatal blind spot.
If I am leaving home intending to go down the bank and take out a significant loan, fair enough that I should be able to prove who I am. If I am taking the dog to the park to play with his ball, not so much.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
I am a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes - I am a stay-at-home dad; a house-husband, and I cry at the opening of a pack of crisps. But I see acceptance of differences as helpful, not a threat.
I really think the second of your points is the crux: and that's where there is a strong comparison with homosexuality in the 1980s. I well recall the perceived danger of 'gay men' in public toilets and the "won't someone think of the children!"-style shrieks.
The problem is not trans people; the problem is people who attack women. Worse, this idea that trans people are the pre-eminent threat to women (as that's the only form of abuse that gets talked about on here) actually puts women at risk.
Abusers are the problem. Not trans people. If some sick git wants to abuse a woman, they will find a way.
I also see acceptance of differences as helpful, not a threat, but the trans absolutists do not.
They are the ones who insist that children who don't conform to gender stereotypes are therefore trans and therefore should be given medical treatment to override their biology. That's why I see their ideology as a threat to my identity.
As regards the second point I don't think you understand the basis of safeguarding rules. As a man, with a male body, I am excluded from certain spaces not because there is a judgement that I, specifically, am a threat to women, but because there's a recognition that I belong to a group of people - those with male bodies - among whom are the vast majority of offenders.
I'm not arguing that trans women are specifically a particular threat to women, only that, if they still have male bodies, then they are still part of the group of people - those with male bodies - which includes the vast majority of offenders.
They are therefore as much as a risk to women as me - most likely very little - but as a risk-reduction measure should accept being excluded, as I do, for the general good.
I really don't see the point of ID cards, given the technology exists to chip us today. Have a cat or dog? It's chipped.
Want to enter into pub? They scan your chip.
Want to vote? They scan your chip.
Employers could simply use a scanner so that as workers arrived, their chip was read, and they were registered as being at work.
No worries about people forgetting their ID card. And, of course, illegal immigrants would lack the requisite chip.
And I've asked both my dogs, and all three cats, and none of them have any issues with the chipping system.
Well that sort of IS an ID card. A damn good one too.
It’s a damn good one, until the day when your chip number gets randomly assigned to someone else in the database, and you become an un-person.
No, you just have to change identities, and potentially sex as well.
It would add a frisson of excitement to peoples' lives, when they awoke one morning to find they were no longer Sarah Smith (23) of Benton Road, Newcastle, and were now a pensioner living in Worthing.
I give Cineworld Chesterfield less than 6 months. Empty screens empty confectionery stands, nobody buying the overpriced drinks. A ratio of 6 staff ( that I can see in front of me) to 1 cinema goer is never going to work.
Has Covid broken the need to go to the pictures? When you can pay similar to do a 4k HDR stream of the same film on your 80" OLED with surround sound and eat your own popcorn?
For me it is still better to see many films - almost all films - on a big screen rather than a TV, no matter how big that is. The immersive environment really makes it something special. It is why I take every opportunity I can to go and watch old films when they are reshown at the cinema. Having only ever seen 2001 on the TV it was remarkable to resee it as it was intended. The same goes for Bladerunner which I will watch at the cinema at every opportunity. I have also watched Citizen Kane and Casablanca on the big screen and they really are something else.
Were Leonadamus’s breathless predictions of WW3 last night wrong then?
No, we all died last night.
This is hell.
Thanks. Explains a lot.
I still feel for Kari Lake, torn between blaming a deep state conspiracy or alien intervention for her unexpected defeat, still entirely ignorant of the Curse of Leondamus whose shadow fell across her home patch just last month.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
What primarily bothers me is 1) a trans identity is being pushed on kids who are just mildly different or not quite comfortable in their own teenage or pre-teen skin. The trans lobby is telling primary school girls who are ambivalent about the way their bodies are changing that these feeling are because they are trans, rather than they are, perfectly unusually, children in women's bodies. It is telling kids who are gay, or autistic, or just don't quite fit in with the rather limited group of peers chance has given them, that they feel like they do because they are trans. And, unforgivably, it is encouraging the medicalising of these conditions, and the 'treatment' with drugs and other procedures with the potential for some quite serious long term implications. 2) telling kids that there is one, narrow, stereotyped way of being male, and one, narrow, stereotyped way of being female, and that if you don't slot into one - the right one - of these two identities then you, too, are trans. This is telling kids that there aren't different approaches to being male or female: a man who is a bit dandyish, a woman who likes DIY - telling them that they need to conform to their label. 3) you can't just go changing the way words like 'man' or 'woman' are used - that have meant something specific since Middle English - because reality doesn't suit you.
Plenty of other beefs with the trans lobby are valid, but they're my top three. Kids, kids and language.
I really don't see the point of ID cards, given the technology exists to chip us today. Have a cat or dog? It's chipped.
Want to enter into pub? They scan your chip.
Want to vote? They scan your chip.
Employers could simply use a scanner so that as workers arrived, their chip was read, and they were registered as being at work.
No worries about people forgetting their ID card. And, of course, illegal immigrants would lack the requisite chip.
And I've asked both my dogs, and all three cats, and none of them have any issues with the chipping system.
Well that sort of IS an ID card. A damn good one too.
It’s a damn good one, until the day when your chip number gets randomly assigned to someone else in the database, and you become an un-person.
No, you just have to change identities, and potentially sex as well.
It would add a frisson of excitement to peoples' lives, when they awoke one morning to find they were no longer Sarah Smith (23) of Benton Road, Newcastle, and were now a pensioner living in Worthing.
Would we get pensioner benefits, lower NI and a bus pass?
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
I am a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes - I am a stay-at-home dad; a house-husband, and I cry at the opening of a pack of crisps. But I see acceptance of differences as helpful, not a threat.
I really think the second of your points is the crux: and that's where there is a strong comparison with homosexuality in the 1980s. I well recall the perceived danger of 'gay men' in public toilets and the "won't someone think of the children!"-style shrieks.
The problem is not trans people; the problem is people who attack women. Worse, this idea that trans people are the pre-eminent threat to women (as that's the only form of abuse that gets talked about on here) actually puts women at risk.
Abusers are the problem. Not trans people. If some sick git wants to abuse a woman, they will find a way.
But what we currently have in place is a system that provides safe spaces for women who are being abused by men. This is recognition of the fact that there is sometimes a need to segregate the men to protect the women, not just physically but, if they have previously been abused, then emotionally too.
What you are saying is that, in effect, those safe spaces should no longer exist.
I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR
Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
No. Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.
You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.
2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
I've said much the same. Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
Really? AOC might not be in the same league as our old school socialists in terms of redistribution, but she is, unless I am very much mistaken, quite a long way left of Liz Kendall or Rachel Reeves in terms of her position on identarian issues.
I think you are confusing 'TWAW' with 'leftwing' – a common mistake on PB. There are lots of very leftwing people who would oppose AOC's views on trans issues.
I'm not confusing TWAW with leftwing because I don't know what TWAW is! Is it trans? But that's my point - AOC is not a big redistributionist or nationaliser, as far as I know. But she holds what are usually described as quite far left view on trans and race. She is, if I'm not mistaken, a 1619-er? Of course, identity views don't translate easily between the USA and the UK. But she strikes me as having much more controversial views than either Kendall or Reeves.
Should I tell you or have you googled it now?
Prompted by this, I googled it. It relates to beef no. 3 in my previous post. If trans women are women, then it reduces a woman to 'someone who identifies as a woman' - which is a circular definition and meaningless.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
The only proposal that interests those making proposals, is the super linked database that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in officialdom can access.
Yes, ok, you think and say so. But all systems need controls. Let's see what they are in this case. You seem to be ruling out ID cards on account of some spooky insight into the minds of those proposing them.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
I am a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes - I am a stay-at-home dad; a house-husband, and I cry at the opening of a pack of crisps. But I see acceptance of differences as helpful, not a threat.
I really think the second of your points is the crux: and that's where there is a strong comparison with homosexuality in the 1980s. I well recall the perceived danger of 'gay men' in public toilets and the "won't someone think of the children!"-style shrieks.
The problem is not trans people; the problem is people who attack women. Worse, this idea that trans people are the pre-eminent threat to women (as that's the only form of abuse that gets talked about on here) actually puts women at risk.
Abusers are the problem. Not trans people. If some sick git wants to abuse a woman, they will find a way.
But what we currently have in place is a system that provides safe spaces for women who are being abused by men. This is recognition of the fact that there is sometimes a need to segregate the men to protect the women, not just physically but, if they have previously been abused, then emotionally too.
What you are saying is that, in effect, those safe spaces should no longer exist.
I am not in the least saying that. *Any* refuge should take in any new resident carefully: as abusers of all sorts (e.g. violence of all sorts) are not just male. Women can abuse and be violent, too. Refuges should be free to refuse entry to any person they feel might be a danger to their residents, or for other reasons. AIUI being too close to their home is a frequent reason for refusal.
By the way have we mentioned the IDS judgement yet? I find myself split over it. I think the judge was right to dismiss the case against the two protestors for shouting at him. I mean I think they are scumbags for doing it in the way they did but I agree that freedom of speech should not be dictated by a volume knob. I know others on both sides will disagree with me there.
I have far more problem with the fact there was no case to answer for someone clobbering IDS with a traffic cone. That is assault and the submission that there was 'weak' evidence of who did it, given there were only 3 people there shouting at him is, in itself, a weak argument.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
The only proposal that interests those making proposals, is the super linked database that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in officialdom can access.
Yes, ok, you think and say so. But all systems need controls. Let's see what they are in this case. You seem to be ruling out ID cards on account of some spooky insight into the minds of those proposing them.
No, I’m ruling out ID cards on account of the nature of the previous proposals, the comments from several Home Secretaries since then, and my experience of how they work in other countries.
I've been listening to the Governer of the Bank of England. Colour me unimpressed. I don't claim to be an economist, but I am a scientist. He's a weasel.
The Chair was good, the Govenor was good only at prevarification. It appears the woman who was his deputy second-guessed him effectively, but was ignored. OK, economics isn't a true science, and hindsight is far more efficient, but it sounded like he'd dropped a bollock. Yet he was so supersilious, it looked like a good kick in his missing bollock would be deserved.
Needless to say, the only news from the journalists watching was that he would refuse a payrise. Big deal.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
I am a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes - I am a stay-at-home dad; a house-husband, and I cry at the opening of a pack of crisps. But I see acceptance of differences as helpful, not a threat.
I really think the second of your points is the crux: and that's where there is a strong comparison with homosexuality in the 1980s. I well recall the perceived danger of 'gay men' in public toilets and the "won't someone think of the children!"-style shrieks.
The problem is not trans people; the problem is people who attack women. Worse, this idea that trans people are the pre-eminent threat to women (as that's the only form of abuse that gets talked about on here) actually puts women at risk.
Abusers are the problem. Not trans people. If some sick git wants to abuse a woman, they will find a way.
But what we currently have in place is a system that provides safe spaces for women who are being abused by men. This is recognition of the fact that there is sometimes a need to segregate the men to protect the women, not just physically but, if they have previously been abused, then emotionally too.
What you are saying is that, in effect, those safe spaces should no longer exist.
I am not in the least saying that. *Any* refuge should take in any new resident carefully: as abusers of all sorts (e.g. violence of all sorts) are not just male. Women can abuse and be violent, too. Refuges should be free to refuse entry to any person they feel might be a danger to their residents, or for other reasons. AIUI being too close to their home is a frequent reason for refusal.
This is weak in the extreme. The overwhelming majority of women do not go to women's refuges to escape violence from other women, they go to escape violent men. They go because they are afraid of men - usually specific but sometimes generally - and certainly don't want to end up in a supposedly safe space who they consider to be a threat.
Yes refuges can refuse entry on various grounds but your whole argument so far is that being pre-op male to female transgender should not be reasonable grounds for such discrimination.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
I'm not much fussed about having that sort of data - where I've travelled, what I've bought in the shops etc - on me available. We all have a hierarchy of concerns, don't we, and the Surveillance Society isn't close to the top of mine. Which is not to say I'm gagging for the Surveillance Society. I'm not. On ID cards imo it comes down to assessing the benefit against the cost and the risk. If I ever see a proposal that's what I'd hope to do.
Obviously I haven’t seen as many world cups as many of you, but I have followed them all since 2006 and come to conclusion the most watchable sides don’t always win, the strongest sides overall don’t always win - so odds like that for a good team like Belgium I think is a good idea. Yes value.
But then too many value bets we can’t hedge them all, it should to be like the Grand National, just punt for one or two and see how far they can go for the reasons you expect?
Fourfourtwo which is a dedicated football magazine has Brazil beating Germany in the final.
Thanks for the reply MoonRabbit. I've put a small bet on Portugal.
The issue that concerns me is that it seems that the innocent until proved guilty has changed to guilty until proved innocent
Well, it's not a court of law, and we have become used to discovering our political leaders often display childish behaviours and petty bullying which they defend as being tough.
It may well be Raab is not a nice man, but that's not fatal to him. So far that seems the main thrust of allegations.
He threw the tomatos into a bag on the other side of the table… sounds like he didn’t like them and he threw them into the rubbish bag…
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
It’s a reaction to the “your papers, please” that we all grew up with in the movies.
In most European countries you are expected to carry on you documentation that proves who you are, should you be stopped. In Britain, we are not.
I wouldn’t trust a future Labour government with our traditional liberties, for more than a second.
I think the dilemma is this. As it is assumed, reported and not seriously denied that there are huge numbers (one million?) of people living in the UK with no right to do so it is obvious that we need to start from scratch with a proper ID system so that being in the UK and the right to do so are in a high degree of harmony.
In other words authority is staggeringly incompetent.
OTOH no-one, for the same reasons, trusts government or authority at any level - the people who can't run a passport application system for simple folks wanting to go on holiday in six months time - to run an ID system competently, justly, lawfully or accurately.
I am sure they could make it work. While it is amazingly difficult to penetrate the NHS at any level, it is, I find, remarkably straightforward to make an Income Tax payment. They can do it if they want.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
The opposition to ID cards is essentially a libertarian conservative rationale. See David Davis's vanity by election. It's a circle they can't square when they want to know the location of an asylum seeker, which is why they are keen to keep them in detention centres. Yet as I have tried to point out to great ambivalence on here today, David Davies already carries one.
I'm disappointingly agnostic on it. I don't share the "slippery slope to a police state" or the slightly more philosophical "no freeborn human being should have to prove who they are" strands of sentiment; but otoh I can see that there are civil liberty risks you'd have to navigate, controls to be designed in, and there'd be a cost, no doubt it would deliver late and overrun the budget, and there'd be cock-ups and private sector consultants making hay etc etc, and we've rubbed along without them up to now, so you'd need to be sure the benefit outweighed all of that.
Most EU countries have them and are comfortable with ID cards. Don't forget the civil rights issues should create more alarm in modern Germany after their use in the Third Reich than they should here.
It is a false premise to suggest our liberty is in peril if we are issued with an ID card when the government have issued us with an identity number at aged 16 (NI number) which is now linked to all manner of other identity documents including NHS records, HMRC details DVLA details and Border Agency documents ( i.e a passport). To deny we are already under the scrutiny of Big Brother is for the birds. A card in the pocket won't make it worse.
They're comfortable with them because they've been using them for a very long time.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
I'm not much fussed about having that sort of data - where I've travelled, what I've bought in the shops etc - on me available. We all have a hierarchy of concerns, don't we, and this one - the Surveillance Society - isn't close to the top of mine. That is not to say I'm gagging for the Surveillance Society. I'm not. On ID cards imo it comes down to assessing the benefit against the cost and the risk. If I ever see a proposal that's what I'd hope to do.
You must also though consider, to what use a future Government would put ID cards and associated databases if they were more authoritarian. I understand all the arguments about social media tracing, mobile phones and store cards but if I really wanted to I could simply choose to drop all of those if I felt they were a threat to my liberty. I could not do the same with a legally mandated ID card.
We already know how incredibly difficult it is for a normal citizen to avoid being scrutinised and traced in modern society but I don't see any point in making it any easier for the buggers.
Raab said “there was a confidentiality clause which was standard at the time.”
What a phrase. Standard at the time. It was only “standard at the time” for people having to go to court over employment problems with women they worked with.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes.
No-one pushing ID cards has any interest in the cards themselves, except perhaps the companies competing to sell card printers to the government. It’s all about the databases, see China for more details.
Surely there are examples of working ID cards a bit closer to home - in both geographical and political terms - than China. Eg in Western Europe?
Spain, where I’ve lived, does it well with the DNI card.
The problem is that no-one in the UK has ever proposed anything like the Spanish solution. In the eyes of the proposers, the cards are very much secondary to the big database. The proposals all look rather Chinese.
Do we actually have a live proposal to look at? Or is all this discussion harking back to the Blair era?
It’s back to the Blair era. Every Home Secretary since then, has - thankfully - refused to discuss the subject with officials.
So there's no proposal then. Ok, we park it. Or I do rather. By all means you guys keep going.
The Ukrainian military told US and allies that it attempted to intercept a Russian missile during the timeframe and near that location of the Poland missile strike, US official tells CNN
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes.
No-one pushing ID cards has any interest in the cards themselves, except perhaps the companies competing to sell card printers to the government. It’s all about the databases, see China for more details.
Surely there are examples of working ID cards a bit closer to home - in both geographical and political terms - than China. Eg in Western Europe?
Spain, where I’ve lived, does it well with the DNI card.
The problem is that no-one in the UK has ever proposed anything like the Spanish solution. In the eyes of the proposers, the cards are very much secondary to the big database. The proposals all look rather Chinese.
Do we actually have a live proposal to look at? Or is all this discussion harking back to the Blair era?
It’s back to the Blair era. Every Home Secretary since then, has - thankfully - refused to discuss the subject with officials.
So there's no proposal then. Ok, we park it. Or I do rather. By all means you guys keep going.
If it gets floated best to stamp down on it quickly!
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
Yep - beyond events the lack of interesting films is what is driving the lack of cinema attendance.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
I'm seeing Glass Onion next week - very excited
I hope it is as much fun as Knives Out, but am prepared to be disappointed. No spoilers, please, as it's going to be a while before I will have the time to see it.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
83" !!
My 55" OLED is more than big enough
When I had my 60 it was about as large as you could get, and when it came time to replace much larger were available and it just felt too big.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
One possible answer is that the people who stand to profit financially from implementing them want them.
Ok, but I'm talking about amongst the public. The thesis is that many people who don't care about illegal immigration nevertheless support ID cards.
The French interior ministry estimates that they have 900,000 undocumented migrants in France, so ID cards are clearly not a panacea in the way that some people think.
Which people? The "civil servants at the home office" or large numbers of the public?
And which are the ones who WillG says want ID cards even though they don't care about illegal migration? And why do they want them in that case?
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
I'm not much fussed about having that sort of data - where I've travelled, what I've bought in the shops etc - on me available. We all have a hierarchy of concerns, don't we, and this one - the Surveillance Society - isn't close to the top of mine. That is not to say I'm gagging for the Surveillance Society. I'm not. On ID cards imo it comes down to assessing the benefit against the cost and the risk. If I ever see a proposal that's what I'd hope to do.
You must also though consider, to what use a future Government would put ID cards and associated databases if they were more authoritarian. I understand all the arguments about social media tracing, mobile phones and store cards but if I really wanted to I could simply choose to drop all of those if I felt they were a threat to my liberty. I could not do the same with a legally mandated ID card.
We already know how incredibly difficult it is for a normal citizen to avoid being scrutinised and traced in modern society but I don't see any point in making it any easier for the buggers.
I have few issues with ID cards. I already carry a driving licence, my Uni ID card, bank and credit cards etc. When I access the NHS they need me to prove who I am. Same for banks etc.
As long as there is no requirement to generally carry them I see no issue. Being asked to produce it to vote, for instance, or as proof of the right to work at a hand car wash, would not be that much of a hardship.
I do find it amusing how much people stress about the amount of information the government holds or might hold on them, without doing so about social media, general internet, bank history etc. I know some obsess about those too, but a lot of people are wound up by the former but not the latter.
At the end of the day lots of people see your personal details, be it the doctors receptionist or the person on the phone at the back, or the minion at the HMRC. There are laws and rules in place to protect your data. It won't always work of course, but no law is perfect, and neither is a system.
Didn't Big Dom Cummings say something similar about special advisers and the like?
The immediate and obvious difference being that I doubt any of the Special Advisors and such like were actually employees. If you are a contractor then generally you can be dumped on the spot with no recourse outside what is specifically written in your contract. I suspect most of those being fired by Musk are employees which will make a world of difference.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
I'm not much fussed about having that sort of data - where I've travelled, what I've bought in the shops etc - on me available. We all have a hierarchy of concerns, don't we, and this one - the Surveillance Society - isn't close to the top of mine. That is not to say I'm gagging for the Surveillance Society. I'm not. On ID cards imo it comes down to assessing the benefit against the cost and the risk. If I ever see a proposal that's what I'd hope to do.
You must also though consider, to what use a future Government would put ID cards and associated databases if they were more authoritarian. I understand all the arguments about social media tracing, mobile phones and store cards but if I really wanted to I could simply choose to drop all of those if I felt they were a threat to my liberty. I could not do the same with a legally mandated ID card.
We already know how incredibly difficult it is for a normal citizen to avoid being scrutinised and traced in modern society but I don't see any point in making it any easier for the buggers.
I have few issues with ID cards. I already carry a driving licence, my Uni ID card, bank and credit cards etc. When I access the NHS they need me to prove who I am. Same for banks etc.
As long as there is no requirement to generally carry them I see no issue. Being asked to produce it to vote, for instance, or as proof of the right to work at a hand car wash, would not be that much of a hardship.
I do find it amusing how much people stress about the amount of information the government holds or might hold on them, without doing so about social media, general internet, bank history etc. I know some obsess about those too, but a lot of people are wound up by the former but not the latter.
At the end of the day lots of people see your personal details, be it the doctors receptionist or the person on the phone at the back, or the minion at the HMRC. There are laws and rules in place to protect your data. It won't always work of course, but no law is perfect, and neither is a system.
Because the state has the power to put me in prison, Instagram doesn't.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
I'm not much fussed about having that sort of data - where I've travelled, what I've bought in the shops etc - on me available. We all have a hierarchy of concerns, don't we, and this one - the Surveillance Society - isn't close to the top of mine. That is not to say I'm gagging for the Surveillance Society. I'm not. On ID cards imo it comes down to assessing the benefit against the cost and the risk. If I ever see a proposal that's what I'd hope to do.
You must also though consider, to what use a future Government would put ID cards and associated databases if they were more authoritarian. I understand all the arguments about social media tracing, mobile phones and store cards but if I really wanted to I could simply choose to drop all of those if I felt they were a threat to my liberty. I could not do the same with a legally mandated ID card.
We already know how incredibly difficult it is for a normal citizen to avoid being scrutinised and traced in modern society but I don't see any point in making it any easier for the buggers.
I have few issues with ID cards. I already carry a driving licence, my Uni ID card, bank and credit cards etc. When I access the NHS they need me to prove who I am. Same for banks etc.
As long as there is no requirement to generally carry them I see no issue. Being asked to produce it to vote, for instance, or as proof of the right to work at a hand car wash, would not be that much of a hardship.
I do find it amusing how much people stress about the amount of information the government holds or might hold on them, without doing so about social media, general internet, bank history etc. I know some obsess about those too, but a lot of people are wound up by the former but not the latter.
At the end of the day lots of people see your personal details, be it the doctors receptionist or the person on the phone at the back, or the minion at the HMRC. There are laws and rules in place to protect your data. It won't always work of course, but no law is perfect, and neither is a system.
Because the state has the power to put me in prison, Instagram doesn't.
I understand that and only an idiot denies that miscarriages of justice do happen, but what crime are you expecting to have committed?
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
Yep - beyond events the lack of interesting films is what is driving the lack of cinema attendance.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
I'm seeing Glass Onion next week - very excited
I hope it is as much fun as Knives Out, but am prepared to be disappointed. No spoilers, please, as it's going to be a while before I will have the time to see it.
I just hope Dan Craig has used the time wisely to perfect his Southern Belle accent.....
I give Cineworld Chesterfield less than 6 months. Empty screens empty confectionery stands, nobody buying the overpriced drinks. A ratio of 6 staff ( that I can see in front of me) to 1 cinema goer is never going to work.
Has Covid broken the need to go to the pictures? When you can pay similar to do a 4k HDR stream of the same film on your 80" OLED with surround sound and eat your own popcorn?
For me it is still better to see many films - almost all films - on a big screen rather than a TV, no matter how big that is. The immersive environment really makes it something special. It is why I take every opportunity I can to go and watch old films when they are reshown at the cinema. Having only ever seen 2001 on the TV it was remarkable to resee it as it was intended. The same goes for Bladerunner which I will watch at the cinema at every opportunity. I have also watched Citizen Kane and Casablanca on the big screen and they really are something else.
Apocalypse Now was amazing in cinema when it first came out.
Here's a question. Would it be possible to have an ID "card", but without the physical ID card - i.e. I suppose a virtual number/sequence that is, in effect, an ID that can be used to access services, prove who I am in limited circumstances, but not something I have to physically present to any "officials"?
I'd be attracted to a system that identifies me through a sole identifier, just to make my life easier. At the moment I have an NI number, an NHS number, a DVLA number, a passport number, and various others of less significance. I'd really like, as a boring old fart with nothing to hide, the same number/identifier for all these services. Wouldn't joining all these up make life easier?
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
I'm not much fussed about having that sort of data - where I've travelled, what I've bought in the shops etc - on me available. We all have a hierarchy of concerns, don't we, and this one - the Surveillance Society - isn't close to the top of mine. That is not to say I'm gagging for the Surveillance Society. I'm not. On ID cards imo it comes down to assessing the benefit against the cost and the risk. If I ever see a proposal that's what I'd hope to do.
You must also though consider, to what use a future Government would put ID cards and associated databases if they were more authoritarian. I understand all the arguments about social media tracing, mobile phones and store cards but if I really wanted to I could simply choose to drop all of those if I felt they were a threat to my liberty. I could not do the same with a legally mandated ID card.
We already know how incredibly difficult it is for a normal citizen to avoid being scrutinised and traced in modern society but I don't see any point in making it any easier for the buggers.
I have few issues with ID cards. I already carry a driving licence, my Uni ID card, bank and credit cards etc. When I access the NHS they need me to prove who I am. Same for banks etc.
As long as there is no requirement to generally carry them I see no issue. Being asked to produce it to vote, for instance, or as proof of the right to work at a hand car wash, would not be that much of a hardship.
I do find it amusing how much people stress about the amount of information the government holds or might hold on them, without doing so about social media, general internet, bank history etc. I know some obsess about those too, but a lot of people are wound up by the former but not the latter.
At the end of the day lots of people see your personal details, be it the doctors receptionist or the person on the phone at the back, or the minion at the HMRC. There are laws and rules in place to protect your data. It won't always work of course, but no law is perfect, and neither is a system.
We already know that previous authoritarian rules such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act were being abused all over the place. I see no reason to give the state one fraction more power than they absolutely need - and even then under protest. If you give people power they will abuse it.
And as I said, if things did start to go bad with our Government then I can simply drop all the social media, store cards etc. I can't drop an ID card that I am legally bound to produce on request.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
I'm not much fussed about having that sort of data - where I've travelled, what I've bought in the shops etc - on me available. We all have a hierarchy of concerns, don't we, and this one - the Surveillance Society - isn't close to the top of mine. That is not to say I'm gagging for the Surveillance Society. I'm not. On ID cards imo it comes down to assessing the benefit against the cost and the risk. If I ever see a proposal that's what I'd hope to do.
You must also though consider, to what use a future Government would put ID cards and associated databases if they were more authoritarian. I understand all the arguments about social media tracing, mobile phones and store cards but if I really wanted to I could simply choose to drop all of those if I felt they were a threat to my liberty. I could not do the same with a legally mandated ID card.
We already know how incredibly difficult it is for a normal citizen to avoid being scrutinised and traced in modern society but I don't see any point in making it any easier for the buggers.
I have few issues with ID cards. I already carry a driving licence, my Uni ID card, bank and credit cards etc. When I access the NHS they need me to prove who I am. Same for banks etc.
As long as there is no requirement to generally carry them I see no issue. Being asked to produce it to vote, for instance, or as proof of the right to work at a hand car wash, would not be that much of a hardship.
I do find it amusing how much people stress about the amount of information the government holds or might hold on them, without doing so about social media, general internet, bank history etc. I know some obsess about those too, but a lot of people are wound up by the former but not the latter.
At the end of the day lots of people see your personal details, be it the doctors receptionist or the person on the phone at the back, or the minion at the HMRC. There are laws and rules in place to protect your data. It won't always work of course, but no law is perfect, and neither is a system.
Because the state has the power to put me in prison, Instagram doesn't.
I understand that and only an idiot denies that miscarriages of justice do happen, but what crime are you expecting to have committed?
Whatever made up charge they can think of, I don't trust the Met or the state at all. Neither has my best interests at heart.
Here's a question. Would it be possible to have an ID "card", but without the physical ID card - i.e. I suppose a virtual number/sequence that is, in effect, an ID that can be used to access services, prove who I am in limited circumstances, but not something I have to physically present to any "officials"?
Without a physical object, how do you verify the number belongs to you?
I suppose you could tattoo in on your arm, for example...
Here's a question. Would it be possible to have an ID "card", but without the physical ID card - i.e. I suppose a virtual number/sequence that is, in effect, an ID that can be used to access services, prove who I am in limited circumstances, but not something I have to physically present to any "officials"?
Without a physical object, how do you verify the number belongs to you?
I suppose you could tattoo in on your arm, for example...
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
Yep - beyond events the lack of interesting films is what is driving the lack of cinema attendance.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
I'm seeing Glass Onion next week - very excited
I hope it is as much fun as Knives Out, but am prepared to be disappointed. No spoilers, please, as it's going to be a while before I will have the time to see it.
I just hope Dan Craig has used the time wisely to perfect his Southern Belle accent.....
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
Perhaps you don't see it because there isn't a parallel in the case of how you react to the issue. But what about those who truly do associate transgenderism with danger and perversion? Can you speak for them? I don't see how you can.
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
Yep - beyond events the lack of interesting films is what is driving the lack of cinema attendance.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
I'm seeing Glass Onion next week - very excited
I hope it is as much fun as Knives Out, but am prepared to be disappointed. No spoilers, please, as it's going to be a while before I will have the time to see it.
I just hope Dan Craig has used the time wisely to perfect his Southern Belle accent.....
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
I am a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes - I am a stay-at-home dad; a house-husband, and I cry at the opening of a pack of crisps. But I see acceptance of differences as helpful, not a threat.
I really think the second of your points is the crux: and that's where there is a strong comparison with homosexuality in the 1980s. I well recall the perceived danger of 'gay men' in public toilets and the "won't someone think of the children!"-style shrieks.
The problem is not trans people; the problem is people who attack women. Worse, this idea that trans people are the pre-eminent threat to women (as that's the only form of abuse that gets talked about on here) actually puts women at risk.
Abusers are the problem. Not trans people. If some sick git wants to abuse a woman, they will find a way.
But what we currently have in place is a system that provides safe spaces for women who are being abused by men. This is recognition of the fact that there is sometimes a need to segregate the men to protect the women, not just physically but, if they have previously been abused, then emotionally too.
What you are saying is that, in effect, those safe spaces should no longer exist.
I am not in the least saying that. *Any* refuge should take in any new resident carefully: as abusers of all sorts (e.g. violence of all sorts) are not just male. Women can abuse and be violent, too. Refuges should be free to refuse entry to any person they feel might be a danger to their residents, or for other reasons. AIUI being too close to their home is a frequent reason for refusal.
This is weak in the extreme. The overwhelming majority of women do not go to women's refuges to escape violence from other women, they go to escape violent men. They go because they are afraid of men - usually specific but sometimes generally - and certainly don't want to end up in a supposedly safe space who they consider to be a threat.
Yes refuges can refuse entry on various grounds but your whole argument so far is that being pre-op male to female transgender should not be reasonable grounds for such discrimination.
"your whole argument so far is that being pre-op male to female transgender should not be reasonable grounds for such discrimination. "
Who said that was my argument? You've changed 'trans' to 'pre-op male to female transgender" Which is a subset of the other.
Instead of 'pre-op male to female transgender', would you have an issue with a 'male to female transgender who has lived as a woman for twenty years" being allowed into a women's refuge? Because they are just as trans as the former; in fact more so, and is where my objections mainly come from.
Didn't Big Dom Cummings say something similar about special advisers and the like?
The immediate and obvious difference being that I doubt any of the Special Advisors and such like were actually employees. If you are a contractor then generally you can be dumped on the spot with no recourse outside what is specifically written in your contract. I suspect most of those being fired by Musk are employees which will make a world of difference.
I was thinking more the entreaty to be hardcore. I have a recollection he was after weird geniuses or something.
Fun thought on ID cards - make the unique code memorable instead of a number.
For a billion numbers, you’d could use a list of a thousand words per 3 digits. Make it a different list per group - one list for thousands, one list for hundreds of thousands, one list for millions.
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
Yep - beyond events the lack of interesting films is what is driving the lack of cinema attendance.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
I'm seeing Glass Onion next week - very excited
I hope it is as much fun as Knives Out, but am prepared to be disappointed. No spoilers, please, as it's going to be a while before I will have the time to see it.
I loved Knives Out, saw it twice in the cinema, and I've been to the cinema about 25 times this year - had no idea about this Glass Onion.
Same thing with that one about murder after an Agatha Christie play, saw no trailer.
Were Leonadamus’s breathless predictions of WW3 last night wrong then?
No, we all died last night.
This is hell.
By his lack of postings today, I'm not sure @Leon made it out of the chaos. That, or he has poor internet access in his bunker.
If we are in hell, I'm mildly sceptical that he made it to the other place.
We don't really know what transgressions the gatekeepers of that place rate as important. The rules are thousands of years old and were drawn up in a moral context almost unrecogmisable from our own. Human values have changed but its not unreasonable to suppose those of an unchanging god haven't. It is rather suspected that the almighty looks dimly on atheism. That rules many of us out of salvation, but not Leon.
I see the men of PB have strong opinions about how women’s shelters should be run.
I wonder how many of them have ever donated to such places?
Not donated, no. But I did volunteer for a short time for a homeless shelter in East London. A fairly harrowing experience, and one that made me realise that homelessness is a much more complex issue than I had expected. That was when I was about 19 or 20; I doubt it's got any less complex. The atmosphere was very jovial at times, but could also get rather dark fairly quickly. Old hands said it used to be much worse.
I quit helping after a few months; partly because I was untrained and unable to help much aside from the most basic things; but mainly because I couldn't hack it. It was too upsetting.
(I daresay to volunteer in such a place in a customer-facing now you'd need loads of background checks and training?)
Rick Scott statement on requested NRSC audit: “When I took over, I immediately became aware that hundreds of thousands of dollars in unauthorized and improper bonuses were paid to outgoing staff after the majority was lost in 2020…
…When that’s your starting point, you work really hard to make sure there are transparent processes and we are more than happy to sit down with any member of the caucus to walk them through our spending. We hope SLF and One Nation do the same."
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
Perhaps you don't see it because there isn't a parallel in the case of how you react to the issue. But what about those who truly do associate transgenderism with danger and perversion? Can you speak for them? I don't see how you can.
The people who would stone adulterers, castrate homosexuals and attack trans people have an interest in conflating all these different issues into one - as contrary to their interpretation of God's Will - and the people who would shut down any debate about trans ideology want the same for the reason of painting any critical voices as being in league with homophobic religious fundamentalists.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
The problem with the trans debate is that it's not any real transgender people that are the problem.
It's the fact some people with ulterior motives are "pretending" to be trans to achieve their motives and many trans people don't see the issue.
A problem with the trans debate on pb.com is that much of it is posters fulminating against something that is virtually absent from here - ie the extreme view (usually credited to the "trans lobby") that sex should disappear as a concept in society and the law and be replaced by gender.
I support making it easier to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate, eg the Scottish reforms, but I don't sign up to gender replacing sex. Also I don't argue for no single sex spaces or activities. You need to look at each area on its merits. The reason I support the reform is simply that in my view it'll make a positive difference to transgender people and won't harm anybody else.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
I'm not much fussed about having that sort of data - where I've travelled, what I've bought in the shops etc - on me available. We all have a hierarchy of concerns, don't we, and this one - the Surveillance Society - isn't close to the top of mine. That is not to say I'm gagging for the Surveillance Society. I'm not. On ID cards imo it comes down to assessing the benefit against the cost and the risk. If I ever see a proposal that's what I'd hope to do.
You must also though consider, to what use a future Government would put ID cards and associated databases if they were more authoritarian. I understand all the arguments about social media tracing, mobile phones and store cards but if I really wanted to I could simply choose to drop all of those if I felt they were a threat to my liberty. I could not do the same with a legally mandated ID card.
We already know how incredibly difficult it is for a normal citizen to avoid being scrutinised and traced in modern society but I don't see any point in making it any easier for the buggers.
I have few issues with ID cards. I already carry a driving licence, my Uni ID card, bank and credit cards etc. When I access the NHS they need me to prove who I am. Same for banks etc.
As long as there is no requirement to generally carry them I see no issue. Being asked to produce it to vote, for instance, or as proof of the right to work at a hand car wash, would not be that much of a hardship.
I do find it amusing how much people stress about the amount of information the government holds or might hold on them, without doing so about social media, general internet, bank history etc. I know some obsess about those too, but a lot of people are wound up by the former but not the latter.
At the end of the day lots of people see your personal details, be it the doctors receptionist or the person on the phone at the back, or the minion at the HMRC. There are laws and rules in place to protect your data. It won't always work of course, but no law is perfect, and neither is a system.
Because the state has the power to put me in prison, Instagram doesn't.
I understand that and only an idiot denies that miscarriages of justice do happen, but what crime are you expecting to have committed?
You don’t need to commit a crime, merely be fitted up for one, by organisations like the Met Police, with their long history of fitting up innocent people only ever bringing guilty suspects to justice.
Didn't Big Dom Cummings say something similar about special advisers and the like?
The immediate and obvious difference being that I doubt any of the Special Advisors and such like were actually employees. If you are a contractor then generally you can be dumped on the spot with no recourse outside what is specifically written in your contract. I suspect most of those being fired by Musk are employees which will make a world of difference.
I was thinking more the entreaty to be hardcore. I have a recollection he was after weird geniuses or something.
Cummings has cited Musk's approach at Twitter as being an example to follow for public services (lol).
I can't say I am a big fan of Elon Musk but I think what he is doing is ultimately fair given that he has spent 44 billion or whatever buying a business which has never really made any money. The people leaving Twitter are going to find lots of other opportunities where they will prefer the culture as they are highly skilled. Musk cannot carry around a bloated zombie corporate structure that is resistant to his legitimate objectives for the business. But having said all that, I would definitely not want to work there, and it might turn out to be the case that he struggles to find people willing to do so, given the nature of what Twitter does, it is different to Tesla and attracts different people.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
One possible answer is that the people who stand to profit financially from implementing them want them.
Ok, but I'm talking about amongst the public. The thesis is that many people who don't care about illegal immigration nevertheless support ID cards.
The French interior ministry estimates that they have 900,000 undocumented migrants in France, so ID cards are clearly not a panacea in the way that some people think.
Yes, but that's because they're all at Calais waiting to get on boats to England.
Including the ones the Saintly French rescued from the mean Italians.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
The problem with the trans debate is that it's not any real transgender people that are the problem.
It's the fact some people with ulterior motives are "pretending" to be trans to achieve their motives and many trans people don't see the issue.
A problem with the trans debate on pb.com is that much of it is posters fulminating against something that is virtually absent from here - ie the extreme view (usually credited to the "trans lobby") that sex should disappear as a concept in society and the law and be replaced by gender.
I support making it easier to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate, eg the Scottish reforms, but I don't sign up to gender replacing sex. Also I don't argue for no single sex spaces or activities. You need to look at each area on its merits. The reason I support the reform is simply that in my view it'll make a positive difference to transgender people and won't harm anybody else.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
Perhaps you don't see it because there isn't a parallel in the case of how you react to the issue. But what about those who truly do associate transgenderism with danger and perversion? Can you speak for them? I don't see how you can.
I am not sure that anyone on here - nor anyone mainstream who has been arguing about this over the last several months - has said anything about perversion. Certainly, I don't get the impression that Lostpassword, Sandpit or Carlotta consider transgender to be a perversion. If it has no negative impact on any other member of society then my attitude is do what you like and you are still a human being of value who should be respected.
The issue is almost not with the transgender community at all. It is with those, both transgender but more often not, who are trying to impose rules on society which then adversely impact others, including, in some cases, those who they are saying they are supposed to be protecting.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
I'm not much fussed about having that sort of data - where I've travelled, what I've bought in the shops etc - on me available. We all have a hierarchy of concerns, don't we, and this one - the Surveillance Society - isn't close to the top of mine. That is not to say I'm gagging for the Surveillance Society. I'm not. On ID cards imo it comes down to assessing the benefit against the cost and the risk. If I ever see a proposal that's what I'd hope to do.
You must also though consider, to what use a future Government would put ID cards and associated databases if they were more authoritarian. I understand all the arguments about social media tracing, mobile phones and store cards but if I really wanted to I could simply choose to drop all of those if I felt they were a threat to my liberty. I could not do the same with a legally mandated ID card.
We already know how incredibly difficult it is for a normal citizen to avoid being scrutinised and traced in modern society but I don't see any point in making it any easier for the buggers.
I have few issues with ID cards. I already carry a driving licence, my Uni ID card, bank and credit cards etc. When I access the NHS they need me to prove who I am. Same for banks etc.
As long as there is no requirement to generally carry them I see no issue. Being asked to produce it to vote, for instance, or as proof of the right to work at a hand car wash, would not be that much of a hardship.
I do find it amusing how much people stress about the amount of information the government holds or might hold on them, without doing so about social media, general internet, bank history etc. I know some obsess about those too, but a lot of people are wound up by the former but not the latter.
At the end of the day lots of people see your personal details, be it the doctors receptionist or the person on the phone at the back, or the minion at the HMRC. There are laws and rules in place to protect your data. It won't always work of course, but no law is perfect, and neither is a system.
We already know that previous authoritarian rules such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act were being abused all over the place. I see no reason to give the state one fraction more power than they absolutely need - and even then under protest. If you give people power they will abuse it.
And as I said, if things did start to go bad with our Government then I can simply drop all the social media, store cards etc. I can't drop an ID card that I am legally bound to produce on request.
Agreed, I think we've seen enough of how it goes with Covid. Hancocks reappearance in public life is a timely reminder.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
Yepp.
ID cards are a total non-issue in Sweden. They make life super dooper easy and are thus popular and used universally for all kinds of purposes. Eg I log in to many websites with Bank ID, which is based on my personal identification number. Apple Pay is also dependent on my Bank ID. Needless to say, its use in the public sector is universal.
Our daughter couldn’t believe it when folk asked her to produce utility bills when she moved to London then Edinburgh. It is mind-bogglingly old fashioned from a Nordic perspective.
You have to do it in Spain even though we have id cards as well!
Treasury Select Committee's @rushanaraali asks Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey whether he agrees with Michael Saunders that without Brexit, there probably wouldn’t be an austerity budget.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
The problem with the trans debate is that it's not any real transgender people that are the problem.
It's the fact some people with ulterior motives are "pretending" to be trans to achieve their motives and many trans people don't see the issue.
A problem with the trans debate on pb.com is that much of it is posters fulminating against something that is virtually absent from here - ie the extreme view (usually credited to the "trans lobby") that sex should disappear as a concept in society and the law and be replaced by gender.
I support making it easier to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate, eg the Scottish reforms, but I don't sign up to gender replacing sex. Also I don't argue for no single sex spaces or activities. You need to look at each area on its merits. The reason I support the reform is simply that in my view it'll make a positive difference to transgender people and won't harm anybody else.
The problem with this debate about predatory males invading female spaces in disguise is that no-one can stop them, short of stipulating an intimate examination of everyone who enters. Like a lot of crime it can only be dealt with post hoc through the justice system with penalties harsh enough to deter.
Obviously I haven’t seen as many world cups as many of you, but I have followed them all since 2006 and come to conclusion the most watchable sides don’t always win, the strongest sides overall don’t always win - so odds like that for a good team like Belgium I think is a good idea. Yes value.
But then too many value bets we can’t hedge them all, it should to be like the Grand National, just punt for one or two and see how far they can go for the reasons you expect?
Fourfourtwo which is a dedicated football magazine has Brazil beating Germany in the final.
Thanks for the reply MoonRabbit. I've put a small bet on Portugal.
I think, like the Grand National, there’s a lot of teams you could make a good case for their chances. And, yes, bookie odds do look very tempting. It all depends how it goes for them in knock out matches.
I was chatting to my Dad about the World Cup. He said the World Cups in the eighties, when he was in his teens, he enjoyed best. He said Italy drew all their group games and were so rubbish the team refused to speak with their own media because all the stick they were getting, and then they knocked out hot favourites Brazil in a thrilling game and went on to win the final 3-1 - meaning teams could not even look very good form early in a tournament but get the breaks when they need them later in the competition.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
I’m so relaxed about the ‘size’ issue I couldn’t tell you how big mine is. All I can say is that it’s the largest that it’s ever been.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
It's more social to go to the cinema though, which is why I still try to go occasionally. It would be sad if all the cinemas close down.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
Perhaps you don't see it because there isn't a parallel in the case of how you react to the issue. But what about those who truly do associate transgenderism with danger and perversion? Can you speak for them? I don't see how you can.
The people who would stone adulterers, castrate homosexuals and attack trans people have an interest in conflating all these different issues into one - as contrary to their interpretation of God's Will - and the people who would shut down any debate about trans ideology want the same for the reason of painting any critical voices as being in league with homophobic religious fundamentalists.
What relevance does that have to the rest of us?
Que? You're not talking to someone who wants to shut down debate. I'm debating.
Specifically I was just explaining why you might not see the parallel - being an assumption that other people view the issue as you do (which has no parallel to homophobia) when there are plenty out there whose anti-trans sentiments do have that parallel.
"There is no homophobic parallel in how I feel about transgender people therefore I don't see that parallel."
Comments
I'd also disagree that no 'real' (*) transgender people are the problem: suffering does not engender nobility, and it's perfectly possible for a trans person to be an abuser. Just as it is possible for your neighbour, or a doctor. Or a teacher. Or social workers. Or a gay or lesbian, for that matter.
(*) What is a 'real' trans person? Someone who had the op twenty years ago and has been living as their new identity for all that period? Someone who is living in that identity pre-op? A transvestite? Someone like Eddie Izzard?
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
If I am leaving home intending to go down the bank and take out a significant loan, fair enough that I should be able to prove who I am. If I am taking the dog to the park to play with his ball, not so much.
They are the ones who insist that children who don't conform to gender stereotypes are therefore trans and therefore should be given medical treatment to override their biology. That's why I see their ideology as a threat to my identity.
As regards the second point I don't think you understand the basis of safeguarding rules. As a man, with a male body, I am excluded from certain spaces not because there is a judgement that I, specifically, am a threat to women, but because there's a recognition that I belong to a group of people - those with male bodies - among whom are the vast majority of offenders.
I'm not arguing that trans women are specifically a particular threat to women, only that, if they still have male bodies, then they are still part of the group of people - those with male bodies - which includes the vast majority of offenders.
They are therefore as much as a risk to women as me - most likely very little - but as a risk-reduction measure should accept being excluded, as I do, for the general good.
It would add a frisson of excitement to peoples' lives, when they awoke one morning to find they were no longer Sarah Smith (23) of Benton Road, Newcastle, and were now a pensioner living in Worthing.
1) a trans identity is being pushed on kids who are just mildly different or not quite comfortable in their own teenage or pre-teen skin. The trans lobby is telling primary school girls who are ambivalent about the way their bodies are changing that these feeling are because they are trans, rather than they are, perfectly unusually, children in women's bodies. It is telling kids who are gay, or autistic, or just don't quite fit in with the rather limited group of peers chance has given them, that they feel like they do because they are trans. And, unforgivably, it is encouraging the medicalising of these conditions, and the 'treatment' with drugs and other procedures with the potential for some quite serious long term implications.
2) telling kids that there is one, narrow, stereotyped way of being male, and one, narrow, stereotyped way of being female, and that if you don't slot into one - the right one - of these two identities then you, too, are trans. This is telling kids that there aren't different approaches to being male or female: a man who is a bit dandyish, a woman who likes DIY - telling them that they need to conform to their label.
3) you can't just go changing the way words like 'man' or 'woman' are used - that have meant something specific since Middle English - because reality doesn't suit you.
Plenty of other beefs with the trans lobby are valid, but they're my top three. Kids, kids and language.
If so, I'm in.
What you are saying is that, in effect, those safe spaces should no longer exist.
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
The nine circles are dealt with by Conhome & various newspaper comment sections.
I have far more problem with the fact there was no case to answer for someone clobbering IDS with a traffic cone. That is assault and the submission that there was 'weak' evidence of who did it, given there were only 3 people there shouting at him is, in itself, a weak argument.
The Chair was good, the Govenor was good only at prevarification. It appears the woman who was his deputy second-guessed him effectively, but was ignored. OK, economics isn't a true science, and hindsight is far more efficient, but it sounded like he'd dropped a bollock. Yet he was so supersilious, it looked like a good kick in his missing bollock would be deserved.
Needless to say, the only news from the journalists watching was that he would refuse a payrise. Big deal.
Yes refuges can refuse entry on various grounds but your whole argument so far is that being pre-op male to female transgender should not be reasonable grounds for such discrimination.
My 55" OLED is more than big enough
In other words authority is staggeringly incompetent.
OTOH no-one, for the same reasons, trusts government or authority at any level - the people who can't run a passport application system for simple folks wanting to go on holiday in six months time - to run an ID system competently, justly, lawfully or accurately.
I am sure they could make it work. While it is amazingly difficult to penetrate the NHS at any level, it is, I find, remarkably straightforward to make an Income Tax payment. They can do it if they want.
Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
We already know how incredibly difficult it is for a normal citizen to avoid being scrutinised and traced in modern society but I don't see any point in making it any easier for the buggers.
No spoilers, please, as it's going to be a while before I will have the time to see it.
I assumed I was growing up at last.
And which are the ones who WillG says want ID cards even though they don't care about illegal migration? And why do they want them in that case?
I'm a bit lost.
As long as there is no requirement to generally carry them I see no issue. Being asked to produce it to vote, for instance, or as proof of the right to work at a hand car wash, would not be that much of a hardship.
I do find it amusing how much people stress about the amount of information the government holds or might hold on them, without doing so about social media, general internet, bank history etc. I know some obsess about those too, but a lot of people are wound up by the former but not the latter.
At the end of the day lots of people see your personal details, be it the doctors receptionist or the person on the phone at the back, or the minion at the HMRC. There are laws and rules in place to protect your data. It won't always work of course, but no law is perfect, and neither is a system.
I wonder how many of them have ever donated to such places?
I'd be attracted to a system that identifies me through a sole identifier, just to make my life easier. At the moment I have an NI number, an NHS number, a DVLA number, a passport number, and various others of less significance. I'd really like, as a boring old fart with nothing to hide, the same number/identifier for all these services. Wouldn't joining all these up make life easier?
And as I said, if things did start to go bad with our Government then I can simply drop all the social media, store cards etc. I can't drop an ID card that I am legally bound to produce on request.
I suppose you could tattoo in on your arm, for example...
Next strawman?
Tuesday 29 November
Wales 6.3
Draw 4.1
England 1.61
Clear value there in laying West Saxony.
Who said that was my argument? You've changed 'trans' to 'pre-op male to female transgender" Which is a subset of the other.
Instead of 'pre-op male to female transgender', would you have an issue with a 'male to female transgender who has lived as a woman for twenty years" being allowed into a women's refuge? Because they are just as trans as the former; in fact more so, and is where my objections mainly come from.
For a billion numbers, you’d could use a list of a thousand words per 3 digits. Make it a different list per group - one list for thousands, one list for hundreds of thousands, one list for millions.
Plus an extra word for checksum.
So *you* could be “CorrectHorseBatteryStaple”
Same thing with that one about murder after an Agatha Christie play, saw no trailer.
It is rather suspected that the almighty looks dimly on atheism. That rules many of us out of salvation, but not Leon.
I quit helping after a few months; partly because I was untrained and unable to help much aside from the most basic things; but mainly because I couldn't hack it. It was too upsetting.
(I daresay to volunteer in such a place in a customer-facing now you'd need loads of background checks and training?)
…When that’s your starting point, you work really hard to make sure there are transparent processes and we are more than happy to sit down with any member of the caucus to walk them through our spending. We hope SLF and One Nation do the same."
https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1592908207684734977
*For those without kids - children run through a lot of clothes and quite often grow out of them before they are at all worn.
That’ll end well.
C’mon Mahsa Amini!
What relevance does that have to the rest of us?
I support making it easier to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate, eg the Scottish reforms, but I don't sign up to gender replacing sex. Also I don't argue for no single sex spaces or activities. You need to look at each area on its merits. The reason I support the reform is simply that in my view it'll make a positive difference to transgender people and won't harm anybody else.
I can't say I am a big fan of Elon Musk but I think what he is doing is ultimately fair given that he has spent 44 billion or whatever buying a business which has never really made any money. The people leaving Twitter are going to find lots of other opportunities where they will prefer the culture as they are highly skilled. Musk cannot carry around a bloated zombie corporate structure that is resistant to his legitimate objectives for the business. But having said all that, I would definitely not want to work there, and it might turn out to be the case that he struggles to find people willing to do so, given the nature of what Twitter does, it is different to Tesla and attracts different people.
The issue is almost not with the transgender community at all. It is with those, both transgender but more often not, who are trying to impose rules on society which then adversely impact others, including, in some cases, those who they are saying they are supposed to be protecting.
Have we self-harmed?
"Yes, there is an effect. We've not been surprised by that." https://twitter.com/lizzzburden/status/1592909044511289344/video/1
Bailey clearly uncomfortable talking about Brexit but Swati Dhingra pulls no punches.
“It’s undeniable now that we’re seeing a bigger slowdown in trade in the UK than in the rest of the world. That’s showing up despite the statistics being much worse than they used to be.” https://twitter.com/lizzzburden/status/1592912395902812161/video/1
I was chatting to my Dad about the World Cup. He said the World Cups in the eighties, when he was in his teens, he enjoyed best. He said Italy drew all their group games and were so rubbish the team refused to speak with their own media because all the stick they were getting, and then they knocked out hot favourites Brazil in a thrilling game and went on to win the final 3-1 - meaning teams could not even look very good form early in a tournament but get the breaks when they need them later in the competition.
Specifically I was just explaining why you might not see the parallel - being an assumption that other people view the issue as you do (which has no parallel to homophobia) when there are plenty out there whose anti-trans sentiments do have that parallel.
"There is no homophobic parallel in how I feel about transgender people therefore I don't see that parallel."
That was the essence of your post.