Howdy, Stranger!

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

Trump back up to a 36% betting chance for the GOP 2024 nomination – politicalbetting.com

12467

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,951

    Scott_xP said:

    Here’s the text of the email Musk sent to Twitter staff overnight.

    Those who don’t commit to being “extremely hardcore” by 5pm ET today must leave the company. ‼️

    Story: http://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/tech/elon-musk-email-ultimatum-twitter/index.html https://twitter.com/donie/status/1592859900941852674/photo/1

    Elon: This is Hardcore https://youtu.be/JXbLyi5wgeg
    That's a great song, from a very underrated album.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,689
    eek said:

    Off-topic:

    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?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,951

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,689
    edited November 2022
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    edited November 2022

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,595
    edited November 2022

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169
    edited November 2022

    Off-topic:

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,951
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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?

    If so, I'm in.
  • Off-topic:

    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.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,977

    DougSeal said:

    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.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,593
    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.
  • DougSeal said:

    Were Leonadamus’s breathless predictions of WW3 last night wrong then?

    No, we all died last night.

    This is hell.
    Purgatory I think you'll find.
    The nine circles are dealt with by Conhome & various newspaper comment sections.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,689

    Off-topic:

    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.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,363
    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    If they left a surprise in your Gucci loafers recently, it could be a dirty protest.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    edited November 2022
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,255
    edited November 2022
    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,541
    Scott_xP said:

    Here’s the text of the email Musk sent to Twitter staff overnight.

    Those who don’t commit to being “extremely hardcore” by 5pm ET today must leave the company. ‼️

    Story: http://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/tech/elon-musk-email-ultimatum-twitter/index.html https://twitter.com/donie/status/1592859900941852674/photo/1

    Standard employment law practice so far as I'm concerned. He must be being advised by some of my former colleagues.
  • Off-topic:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    edited November 2022

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,386
    FPT

    Andy_JS said:

    Value?

    Portugal 14/1
    Belgium 18/1

    to win the football world cup

    https://www.betfair.com/sport/football/fifa-world-cup/12469077/winner-2022/924.301730156

    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.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624
    kle4 said:

    Raab just crushed Mrs Shouty.

    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…
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,595
    MaxPB said:

    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
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,735
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,386

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,751
    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    I was joking there, sandpit. The only chips I want to get involved with are the ones in a bag with salt and vinegar.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624
    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1592856830161879040

    A compromise agreement is the standard way to fire anyone senior. You pay them more than the statutory minimum and they agree not to sue you
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    Scott_xP said:

    Here’s the text of the email Musk sent to Twitter staff overnight.

    Those who don’t commit to being “extremely hardcore” by 5pm ET today must leave the company. ‼️

    Story: http://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/tech/elon-musk-email-ultimatum-twitter/index.html https://twitter.com/donie/status/1592859900941852674/photo/1

    Didn't Big Dom Cummings say something similar about special advisers and the like?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    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

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1592890193648177153

    Surprised not to have seen more of this to be honest.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    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!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,061
    DougSeal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Here’s the text of the email Musk sent to Twitter staff overnight.

    Those who don’t commit to being “extremely hardcore” by 5pm ET today must leave the company. ‼️

    Story: http://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/tech/elon-musk-email-ultimatum-twitter/index.html https://twitter.com/donie/status/1592859900941852674/photo/1

    Standard employment law practice so far as I'm concerned. He must be being advised by some of my former colleagues.
    But what an unadulterated bastard, though. (And yes of course I do realise it's a mixed metaphor.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992
    edited November 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    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 :smile:
    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.

    I assumed I was growing up at last.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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?

    I'm a bit lost.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,593

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    As my wife says, size really does matter.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,492

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Here’s the text of the email Musk sent to Twitter staff overnight.

    Those who don’t commit to being “extremely hardcore” by 5pm ET today must leave the company. ‼️

    Story: http://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/tech/elon-musk-email-ultimatum-twitter/index.html https://twitter.com/donie/status/1592859900941852674/photo/1

    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.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,216
    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?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,593
    edited November 2022
    Also great for a big TV - PS5 games. God of War is incredible on it, almost feels like you're there battling Thor and other Norse deities.
  • kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    I was joking there, sandpit. The only chips I want to get involved with are the ones in a bag with salt and vinegar.
    Talking of ID reassignment, HG Wells covered the ground in 1896 in The Story of the Late Mr. Elvesham.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,492
    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    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 :smile:
    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.....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992

    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.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,751
    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?
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    Phil said:

    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?

    If they say they have would that improve or negate their argument at all? The implication seems to be it would improve it somehow.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,593

    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992

    DougSeal said:

    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164

    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...
  • Phil said:

    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?

    Donated and helped set up. Twice.

    Next strawman?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,593
    Scott_xP said:

    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...
    A chip in your wrist?
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,216

    Phil said:

    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?

    Donated and helped set up. Twice.

    Next strawman?
    Excellent! Glad to hear it.
  • Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    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 :smile:
    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.....
    He's just shot the gayest 2 minutes of the year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekESZIn4y18
  • Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    Hell is having to relive your earthly life over and over again for all eternity while knowing what happens next. Heaven is the same.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897

    Off-topic:

    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.
  • Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    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 :smile:
    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.....
    He's just shot the gayest 2 minutes of the year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekESZIn4y18
    I have watched that about 5 times since someone posted it up last night. Brilliant.
  • Wales v England
    Tuesday 29 November

    Wales 6.3
    Draw 4.1
    England 1.61

    Clear value there in laying West Saxony.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,689

    Off-topic:

    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.
  • Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    Or would have wanted to....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Here’s the text of the email Musk sent to Twitter staff overnight.

    Those who don’t commit to being “extremely hardcore” by 5pm ET today must leave the company. ‼️

    Story: http://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/tech/elon-musk-email-ultimatum-twitter/index.html https://twitter.com/donie/status/1592859900941852674/photo/1

    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.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914
    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.

    Plus an extra word for checksum.

    So *you* could be “CorrectHorseBatteryStaple”
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169
    Phil said:

    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?

    I resent the implication of that question.
  • Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    When Sean isn’t here it’s heaven.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    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 :smile:
    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.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,689
    Phil said:

    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?)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164
    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."

    https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1592908207684734977
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914
    Fun thought on
    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    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?

    Donated and helped set up. Twice.

    Next strawman?
    Excellent! Glad to hear it.
    Do all the children’s-old-clothes-to-charity* via the charity shop run by a local one.

    *For those without kids - children run through a lot of clothes and quite often grow out of them before they are at all worn.
  • “Pop-up pub offering pints for just 66p for England's first World Cup match”

    That’ll end well.

    C’mon Mahsa Amini!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169
    kinabalu said:

    Off-topic:

    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?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    eek said:

    Off-topic:

    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.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,795
    Andy_JS said:

    Freggles said:

    I tend to think Biden can beat Trump again, but if he didn't run, Whitmer would be a better candidate than Harris.

    Never even heard of Whitmer. Going to look him up now.
    Already got money on HER
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433

    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,316
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Here’s the text of the email Musk sent to Twitter staff overnight.

    Those who don’t commit to being “extremely hardcore” by 5pm ET today must leave the company. ‼️

    Story: http://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/tech/elon-musk-email-ultimatum-twitter/index.html https://twitter.com/donie/status/1592859900941852674/photo/1

    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.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,025
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    kinabalu said:

    eek said:

    Off-topic:

    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.
    Tell that to the woman who was raped in a single sex hospital ward https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/hospital-says-patient-could-not-26506744
  • kinabalu said:

    Off-topic:

    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.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,316

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,490

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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!
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,795
    Andy_JS said:

    Freggles said:

    I tend to think Biden can beat Trump again, but if he didn't run, Whitmer would be a better candidate than Harris.

    Never even heard of Whitmer. Going to look him up now.
    Already got money on HER
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164
    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.

    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
  • kinabalu said:

    eek said:

    Off-topic:

    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.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,025
    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Andy_JS said:

    Value?

    Portugal 14/1
    Belgium 18/1

    to win the football world cup

    https://www.betfair.com/sport/football/fifa-world-cup/12469077/winner-2022/924.301730156

    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.
  • MaxPB said:

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,386
    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    edited November 2022

    kinabalu said:

    Off-topic:

    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."

    That was the essence of your post.
This discussion has been closed.