... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect
It felt really good to get that off my sizeable chest!
First, and only, time I've made any comment on the rights and wrongs of this world cup. I've kept silent even to friends but I might show them that post if they press. Many of them know of my saga with the Qatar contract.
I posted similar sentiments yesterday. 2 of our top 4 Premier League clubs are owned by Gulf petro-states with human rights as bad as Qatar, and a third has a sponsorship deal worth £40 million a year with a petro-state. Why is that OK while a World Cup is not?
What on earth makes you think that critics of FIFA think that is OK? It stinks too.
Textbook whataboutery.
We don't see calls for boycots of games involving those teams though.
The Premier League is the most lucrative one in the world, and a highly successful part of the UK economy because of its amoral position on money. Not exclusive to sport though, as many other British businesses earn there, and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression, provided the money is good.
Sure, the Qatar World Cup is riddled with corruption and human rights abuses. That is part and parcel of dealing with that part of the world. Indeed "Yes Minister" had a whole episode on it 40 years ago. Nothing changes much:
My main problem with the World Cup being in Qatar is that it seems pretty dumb to build eight stadiums in such a small area. If they were going to have it out there, at least spread the games around a bit.
My main problem with the world cup in Qatar is that it was peak FIFA bribery. An absurd decision that everyone saw straight through. I honestly hope the tournament collapses into some kind of massive scandal as it would be the only way to stop FIFA from doing the same again in future.
There are, in fact, so many things wrong with awarding the World Cup to Qatar that every one of us could probably pick our own favourite and we'd still not have covered them all. It's one of those arguments you sometimes hear which is so bafflingly wrong in so many ways that it's very hard to argue against it because it is almost impossible to know where to start.
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect
It felt really good to get that off my sizeable chest!
First, and only, time I've made any comment on the rights and wrongs of this world cup. I've kept silent even to friends but I might show them that post if they press. Many of them know of my saga with the Qatar contract.
I posted similar sentiments yesterday. 2 of our top 4 Premier League clubs are owned by Gulf petro-states with human rights as bad as Qatar, and a third has a sponsorship deal worth £40 million a year with a petro-state. Why is that OK while a World Cup is not?
What on earth makes you think that critics of FIFA think that is OK? It stinks too.
Textbook whataboutery.
We don't see calls for boycots of games involving those teams though.
The Premier League is the most lucrative one in the world, and a highly successful part of the UK economy because of its amoral position on money. Not exclusive to sport though, as many other British businesses earn there, and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression, provided the money is good.
Sure, the Qatar World Cup is riddled with corruption and human rights abuses. That is part and parcel of dealing with that part of the world. Indeed "Yes Minister" had a whole episode on it 40 years ago. Nothing changes much:
My main problem with the World Cup being in Qatar is that it seems pretty dumb to build eight stadiums in such a small area. If they were going to have it out there, at least spread the games around a bit.
My main problem with the world cup in Qatar is that it was peak FIFA bribery. An absurd decision that everyone saw straight through. I honestly hope the tournament collapses into some kind of massive scandal as it would be the only way to stop FIFA from doing the same again in future.
I would like to see the final between two teams from countries sufficiently enlightened to instruct the teams to wear controversial (to some) arm bands on all team members. Refuse to remove them and see the final cancelled as the match officials, FIFA (in view of the honesty of the organisation over the years should that be 'Thiefer'?) and participants can not reach a compromise acceptable to the hosts of the competition and the organiser of the competition. In advance the two teams should agree to play the match at another venue in the near future, with or without any recognition from the governing body.
We're already getting reports of very aggressive security at stadiums refusing to let hats or t-shirts into the ground. And its only just started. We're going to get fans arrested and brutalised and that moron at FIFA backing the Qataris.
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect
It felt really good to get that off my sizeable chest!
First, and only, time I've made any comment on the rights and wrongs of this world cup. I've kept silent even to friends but I might show them that post if they press. Many of them know of my saga with the Qatar contract.
I posted similar sentiments yesterday. 2 of our top 4 Premier League clubs are owned by Gulf petro-states with human rights as bad as Qatar, and a third has a sponsorship deal worth £40 million a year with a petro-state. Why is that OK while a World Cup is not?
What on earth makes you think that critics of FIFA think that is OK? It stinks too.
Textbook whataboutery.
We don't see calls for boycots of games involving those teams though.
The Premier League is the most lucrative one in the world, and a highly successful part of the UK economy because of its amoral position on money. Not exclusive to sport though, as many other British businesses earn there, and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression, provided the money is good.
Sure, the Qatar World Cup is riddled with corruption and human rights abuses. That is part and parcel of dealing with that part of the world. Indeed "Yes Minister" had a whole episode on it 40 years ago. Nothing changes much:
My main problem with the World Cup being in Qatar is that it seems pretty dumb to build eight stadiums in such a small area. If they were going to have it out there, at least spread the games around a bit.
My main problem with the world cup in Qatar is that it was peak FIFA bribery. An absurd decision that everyone saw straight through. I honestly hope the tournament collapses into some kind of massive scandal as it would be the only way to stop FIFA from doing the same again in future.
Alas, it wasn't the first World Cup to be bought. Germany 2006 was also paid for, and was quite a big scandal in Germany when they finally came to terms with the fact they'd bought it.
The gender debate seems to me to combine two elements: belief and a fight about power. By gender debate I don’t mean the existence of gender dysphoria. What its cause is and how to treat it is a matter for experts and those with such a condition. People with it should be helped in every way possible to live full and fulfilling lives. No, what interests me is the way this has been conflated into and tied to a wider gender ideology — one which thinks that all have a gender which is different to sex, that it should be the way in which men and women are categorised and that this should be determined solely by an individual’s decision without any regard to anything or anyone else.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
OK. You said it was in jeopardy. I asked how. You say "shrill histronics."
How - specifically - is the act of Britain leaving the European Union in jeopardy?
I am not engaging with you on this subject.
There is no profit to be had from it, and it would be a complete waste of my time.
Fine. You make sweeping statements and then "a complete waste of my time" when challenged. Brexit is leaving the EU. We left. It is not in any way in jeopardy as you claimed.
Thing is he is not isolated in saying it. I think certain people want the message that Brexit is in danger to be the rallying call for get the 2019 band back on the road. It won't wash. Brexit is done (Yes Scott, it really is). We are no longer part of the political union of the EU and we no longer pay money in, nor receive money out. We continue to trade but its not as easy as before. The rational thing to do is recognise the problems and take action to make it easier. I think Sunak and Hunt will do that and I think Starmer will too.
There are, in fact, so many things wrong with awarding the World Cup to Qatar that every one of us could probably pick our own favourite and we'd still not have covered them all. It's one of those arguments you sometimes hear which is so bafflingly wrong in so many ways that it's very hard to argue against it because it is almost impossible to know where to start.</blockquote
do you think there was a better Arab nation (or pair) that could have hosted the event...genuinely interested,
UK Defense Ministry: Russia concerned about threats to crucial naval base.
Reports of an attack at an oil terminal in Novorossiysk, located near a major base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, will likely incite concerns among Russian commanders, reported the U.K. Defense Ministry.
Incidentally, an ex-colleague went to do a job at a major Samsung factory for a few weeks. Apparently he had to hand in his passport, and lived in a hotel within the factory. It seemed to be a rather odd experience for him.
I wouldn't work for anyone anywhere where they demanded I hand my passport in.
I'm surprised people do. You need to be able to get out and leave at any time, if you need to.
When I did my InterRail holiday around Europe in 1981, many hotels/B&Bs made you hand in your passport overnight.
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Incidentally, an ex-colleague went to do a job at a major Samsung factory for a few weeks. Apparently he had to hand in his passport, and lived in a hotel within the factory. It seemed to be a rather odd experience for him.
I wouldn't work for anyone anywhere where they demanded I hand my passport in.
I'm surprised people do. You need to be able to get out and leave at any time, if you need to.
When I did my InterRail holiday around Europe in 1981, many hotels/B&Bs made you hand in your passport overnight.
Isn't that a relic of the Napoleonic system of making a report of strangers (hotel guests) to the authourities?
My missus started a new job last week. She now has a three mile commute. She doesn't drive so is using buses. To say the service is patchy in the extreme is generous. More than once she's been stood an hour waiting as bus after bus simply doesn't turn up.
When I was in my late teens I used the buses round here regularly and they were excellent. Regular, punctual, great coverage. Still LA-owned for some time after deregulation, I think.
Then Arriva came on the scene. I didn't realise how everything has degraded bus-wise until last week, I very rarely use them anymore. It's atrocious. Huge swathes of formerly busy routes have simply been dumped. I know Covid can't have helped, but still.
If we want to help people get to work, and encourage them to do that via public transport to help cut congestion and emissions, in West Yorkshire they are going about it in precisely the wrong way.
And don't get me started on the trains. I was escorted from the platform by a police officer in Leeds station the other week for telling the Northern Rail guy their level of service is 'a fucking disgrace'. I won't bore you with the litany of terrible service that led me to voice that opinion. Suffice to say I wasn't being aggressive, loud, noisy, or threatening anyone, but simply because I dropped the f-bomb in conversation I had violated some railway bylaw about foul language or something, so off I went. The copper who escorted me away was bemused, to say the least.
It feels like everything in this country is falling apart.
In my experience its fine for Revenue Protection to be aggressive to you but they have absolutely zero tolerance for anything back. I've had two or three incidents when it wasn't possible for me to buy a ticket (queue too long and machine out of order, and the guard couldn't dispense one either) and they've been very rude and itching to give me a penalty fare rather than buying one at the terminal gate.
Train companies seem to view their passengers as, at best, entirely incidental to the service they are providing and, at worst, suspicious and hectoring towards them.
I think that there is a common approach from anyone with any authority, which is to categorise people they are dealing with as either wrong 'uns or good people.
If you get classified as a troublemaker early in the interaction then it becomes very difficult to get a fair hearing and turn the situation around.
There are, in fact, so many things wrong with awarding the World Cup to Qatar that every one of us could probably pick our own favourite and we'd still not have covered them all. It's one of those arguments you sometimes hear which is so bafflingly wrong in so many ways that it's very hard to argue against it because it is almost impossible to know where to start.
My missus started a new job last week. She now has a three mile commute. She doesn't drive so is using buses. To say the service is patchy in the extreme is generous. More than once she's been stood an hour waiting as bus after bus simply doesn't turn up.
When I was in my late teens I used the buses round here regularly and they were excellent. Regular, punctual, great coverage. Still LA-owned for some time after deregulation, I think.
Then Arriva came on the scene. I didn't realise how everything has degraded bus-wise until last week, I very rarely use them anymore. It's atrocious. Huge swathes of formerly busy routes have simply been dumped. I know Covid can't have helped, but still.
If we want to help people get to work, and encourage them to do that via public transport to help cut congestion and emissions, in West Yorkshire they are going about it in precisely the wrong way.
And don't get me started on the trains. I was escorted from the platform by a police officer in Leeds station the other week for telling the Northern Rail guy their level of service is 'a fucking disgrace'. I won't bore you with the litany of terrible service that led me to voice that opinion. Suffice to say I wasn't being aggressive, loud, noisy, or threatening anyone, but simply because I dropped the f-bomb in conversation I had violated some railway bylaw about foul language or something, so off I went. The copper who escorted me away was bemused, to say the least.
It feels like everything in this country is falling apart.
We're much too insular. We spend out time worrying about the wrong things. I'm in the South of France about 10 miles from an open border with Italy. Italy is still distinctly Italy. as is France. Let people come and go as they please.Rejoin the EU but join Schengen at the same time. Share the best that each country has to offer. We can still keep our identity. Even the languages haven't got mangled. Share a currency too. The UK are going to be left behind. Jobsworths on every street corner.
I don't think Roger's opinion here is necessarily incoherent, but none of the issues we have relating to transport (which Northern Monkey discusses) would really be addressed by membership or not of the EU and/or Schengen. Indeed, one of the supposed benefits of leaving the EU is the ability to better manage transport (there are all sorts of EU rules about state aid which prevent us from improving transport - particularly relating to bus - though mysteriously our counterparts on the continent appear to find ways to circumvent them).
On bus in particular, one of the issues is simple economics: car ownership is a lot higher than it was back in the 80s, and so journeys which back then were made by bus are now made by cars - meaning that farebox revenue doesn't cover the costs of providing the service as often as it used to. That is, however, reversing. I'm pretty confident the bus offer in the urban north will be better in ten years time than it is now - though for reasons of simple economic will probably never return to what it was in the early 80s (it should be said, though, that my hazy memory of buses in the early 80s was that they were cheap but not necessarily terribly reliable and that the vehicles themselves were horribly dirty. Deregulation hasn't been entirely negative.)
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
OK. You said it was in jeopardy. I asked how. You say "shrill histronics."
How - specifically - is the act of Britain leaving the European Union in jeopardy?
I am not engaging with you on this subject.
There is no profit to be had from it, and it would be a complete waste of my time.
Fine. You make sweeping statements and then "a complete waste of my time" when challenged. Brexit is leaving the EU. We left. It is not in any way in jeopardy as you claimed.
Thing is he is not isolated in saying it. I think certain people want the message that Brexit is in danger to be the rallying call for get the 2019 band back on the road. It won't wash. Brexit is done (Yes Scott, it really is). We are no longer part of the political union of the EU and we no longer pay money in, nor receive money out. We continue to trade but its not as easy as before. The rational thing to do is recognise the problems and take action to make it easier. I think Sunak and Hunt will do that and I think Starmer will too.
Whilst I agree with much of that, the problem is that the Casinos of this world do not. Brexit - as you rightly point out - was the act of Britain exiting the European Union. Both the Brexit name and the government department to deliver it recognised this.
But for so many, "Brexit" wasn't leaving the EU, it was the moon on a stick they could get after doing so. Whether their goal was massive tax avoidance, or sending foreigners home, or freedom from the CFP, or more money for local services, or better paid more secure jobs, or whatever, that was Brexit.
That "Brexit" isn't done because most of those definitions are contradictory and ill-defined. What Casino flags as being under threat isn't Brexit because as you say, we left. Its "Brexit" under threat, whichever preferred unicorn is supported.
Why are so many people swinging behind Brexit being a mistake? Because we were sold a mirage. And it will never be delivered just like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow will never actually be in hand.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect
It felt really good to get that off my sizeable chest!
First, and only, time I've made any comment on the rights and wrongs of this world cup. I've kept silent even to friends but I might show them that post if they press. Many of them know of my saga with the Qatar contract.
I posted similar sentiments yesterday. 2 of our top 4 Premier League clubs are owned by Gulf petro-states with human rights as bad as Qatar, and a third has a sponsorship deal worth £40 million a year with a petro-state. Why is that OK while a World Cup is not?
What on earth makes you think that critics of FIFA think that is OK? It stinks too.
Textbook whataboutery.
We don't see calls for boycots of games involving those teams though.
The Premier League is the most lucrative one in the world, and a highly successful part of the UK economy because of its amoral position on money. Not exclusive to sport though, as many other British businesses earn there, and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression, provided the money is good.
Sure, the Qatar World Cup is riddled with corruption and human rights abuses. That is part and parcel of dealing with that part of the world. Indeed "Yes Minister" had a whole episode on it 40 years ago. Nothing changes much:
My main problem with the World Cup being in Qatar is that it seems pretty dumb to build eight stadiums in such a small area. If they were going to have it out there, at least spread the games around a bit.
I agree, and not just stadiums, but all the supporting infrastructure in hotels etc. Spreading the groups across other Gulf States would have been a better option.
One problem is that World Cups and Olympic games have become such oversized monsters that few countries can afford to host, and in practice the only MENA countries that can afford it are the Gulf States. The same problem goes for the Americas, where the only country that can afford to host is the USA, which has little football heritage.
I would favour a slimmed down WC and Olympics, but with beefed up qualifying rounds, that become regional tournaments in their own right. In effect I would make the group stages a preliminary tournament.
AIUI, relations between the Gulf states aren’t great, which rather stymies the idea of spreading the competition around them.
Sure, there is that.
I watched part of the AFCON tournament from Cameroon recently. There were a number of issues with venue changes, but it was a great spectacle of football.
Our global elite broadcasters and their camp followers would find it a shock hosting a WC in Cameroon, and it would be tricky for travelling supporters. It might be good for football though.
The tidal wave of corrupt money to build stadia etc would hammer Cameroon's polity though. And being so much bigger, proportionally, to their economy, would do a vast amount of damage.
Without the money - well, it's a nice dream. Bit like putting up a a permanent athletics stadium at Olypmpia in Greece and having all the Olympics there.
No, my point was that a World Cup should use existing stadia and infrastructure, and the media circus should downsize to fit, not the host build to fit.
UK Defense Ministry: Russia concerned about threats to crucial naval base.
Reports of an attack at an oil terminal in Novorossiysk, located near a major base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, will likely incite concerns among Russian commanders, reported the U.K. Defense Ministry.
The Kerch bridge truck-bomber advocates remain silent on the Ukrainians having made public their aim to have the worlds largest fleet of stealth drone attack boats. And they have already started building that fleet - having used them to demonstrable effect.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
Oh I agree entirely! But this literally highlights my point - what is "BRINO"? You are either a member of the EU or you are not. We were, we voted for Britain's Exit from the EU -BrExit - and we left.
What we do after Brexit is not Brexit. Norway is not a member of the EU. Switzerland. Iceland. Turkey. All have better trading arrangements with the EEU and CU (neither of which are the EU) than the UK currently does.
So Casino can say what he wants about me. My position, my definition of what BrExit actually means - is clear and logical and legal. And his is not.
UK Defense Ministry: Russia concerned about threats to crucial naval base.
Reports of an attack at an oil terminal in Novorossiysk, located near a major base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, will likely incite concerns among Russian commanders, reported the U.K. Defense Ministry.
The Kerch bridge truck-bomber advocates remain silent on the Ukrainians having made public their aim to have the worlds largest fleet of stealth drone attack boats. And they have already started building that fleet - having used them to demonstrable effect.
Anyone noticed in the videos the boats in question, their method of communication with base?
There are, in fact, so many things wrong with awarding the World Cup to Qatar that every one of us could probably pick our own favourite and we'd still not have covered them all. It's one of those arguments you sometimes hear which is so bafflingly wrong in so many ways that it's very hard to argue against it because it is almost impossible to know where to start.
The UEA and Oman as a joint bid? Morocco (OK, Arabic-speaking) have bid more than once too.
Not the Middle East or Arab (and in UEFA) but on its doorstep: Turkey would be able to make a decent fist of hosting a World Cup.
do you think there was a better Arab nation (or pair) that could have hosted the event...genuinely interested,
Not many. Is Saudi any less horrible than Qatar? It is at least bigger and more accessible. Not Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya or Eritrea, obviously. Not Oman, Bahrain or Tunisia. Algeria would have probably been better; Morocco or Egypt would have definitely been better. UAE probably best of all - reasonably civilised, rich, accessible, a history of putting on sporting tournaments. But in all honesty I wouldn't have sent it to the Middle East.
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect
It felt really good to get that off my sizeable chest!
First, and only, time I've made any comment on the rights and wrongs of this world cup. I've kept silent even to friends but I might show them that post if they press. Many of them know of my saga with the Qatar contract.
I posted similar sentiments yesterday. 2 of our top 4 Premier League clubs are owned by Gulf petro-states with human rights as bad as Qatar, and a third has a sponsorship deal worth £40 million a year with a petro-state. Why is that OK while a World Cup is not?
What on earth makes you think that critics of FIFA think that is OK? It stinks too.
Textbook whataboutery.
We don't see calls for boycots of games involving those teams though.
The Premier League is the most lucrative one in the world, and a highly successful part of the UK economy because of its amoral position on money. Not exclusive to sport though, as many other British businesses earn there, and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression, provided the money is good.
Sure, the Qatar World Cup is riddled with corruption and human rights abuses. That is part and parcel of dealing with that part of the world. Indeed "Yes Minister" had a whole episode on it 40 years ago. Nothing changes much:
My main problem with the World Cup being in Qatar is that it seems pretty dumb to build eight stadiums in such a small area. If they were going to have it out there, at least spread the games around a bit.
I agree, and not just stadiums, but all the supporting infrastructure in hotels etc. Spreading the groups across other Gulf States would have been a better option.
One problem is that World Cups and Olympic games have become such oversized monsters that few countries can afford to host, and in practice the only MENA countries that can afford it are the Gulf States. The same problem goes for the Americas, where the only country that can afford to host is the USA, which has little football heritage.
I would favour a slimmed down WC and Olympics, but with beefed up qualifying rounds, that become regional tournaments in their own right. In effect I would make the group stages a preliminary tournament.
AIUI, relations between the Gulf states aren’t great, which rather stymies the idea of spreading the competition around them.
Sure, there is that.
I watched part of the AFCON tournament from Cameroon recently. There were a number of issues with venue changes, but it was a great spectacle of football.
Our global elite broadcasters and their camp followers would find it a shock hosting a WC in Cameroon, and it would be tricky for travelling supporters. It might be good for football though.
The tidal wave of corrupt money to build stadia etc would hammer Cameroon's polity though. And being so much bigger, proportionally, to their economy, would do a vast amount of damage.
Without the money - well, it's a nice dream. Bit like putting up a a permanent athletics stadium at Olypmpia in Greece and having all the Olympics there.
No, my point was that a World Cup should use existing stadia and infrastructure, and the media circus should downsize to fit, not the host build to fit.
Same goes for Olympics.
How are the officials supposed to keep the fuel tanks on their private jets and stretched limos full? Or stock the mini bars? Or get rooms at ******* hotel?
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect
It felt really good to get that off my sizeable chest!
First, and only, time I've made any comment on the rights and wrongs of this world cup. I've kept silent even to friends but I might show them that post if they press. Many of them know of my saga with the Qatar contract.
I posted similar sentiments yesterday. 2 of our top 4 Premier League clubs are owned by Gulf petro-states with human rights as bad as Qatar, and a third has a sponsorship deal worth £40 million a year with a petro-state. Why is that OK while a World Cup is not?
What on earth makes you think that critics of FIFA think that is OK? It stinks too.
Textbook whataboutery.
We don't see calls for boycots of games involving those teams though.
The Premier League is the most lucrative one in the world, and a highly successful part of the UK economy because of its amoral position on money. Not exclusive to sport though, as many other British businesses earn there, and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression, provided the money is good.
Sure, the Qatar World Cup is riddled with corruption and human rights abuses. That is part and parcel of dealing with that part of the world. Indeed "Yes Minister" had a whole episode on it 40 years ago. Nothing changes much:
My main problem with the World Cup being in Qatar is that it seems pretty dumb to build eight stadiums in such a small area. If they were going to have it out there, at least spread the games around a bit.
I agree, and not just stadiums, but all the supporting infrastructure in hotels etc. Spreading the groups across other Gulf States would have been a better option.
One problem is that World Cups and Olympic games have become such oversized monsters that few countries can afford to host, and in practice the only MENA countries that can afford it are the Gulf States. The same problem goes for the Americas, where the only country that can afford to host is the USA, which has little football heritage.
I would favour a slimmed down WC and Olympics, but with beefed up qualifying rounds, that become regional tournaments in their own right. In effect I would make the group stages a preliminary tournament.
AIUI, relations between the Gulf states aren’t great, which rather stymies the idea of spreading the competition around them.
Sure, there is that.
I watched part of the AFCON tournament from Cameroon recently. There were a number of issues with venue changes, but it was a great spectacle of football.
Our global elite broadcasters and their camp followers would find it a shock hosting a WC in Cameroon, and it would be tricky for travelling supporters. It might be good for football though.
The tidal wave of corrupt money to build stadia etc would hammer Cameroon's polity though. And being so much bigger, proportionally, to their economy, would do a vast amount of damage.
Without the money - well, it's a nice dream. Bit like putting up a a permanent athletics stadium at Olypmpia in Greece and having all the Olympics there.
No, my point was that a World Cup should use existing stadia and infrastructure, and the media circus should downsize to fit, not the host build to fit.
Same goes for Olympics.
That would severely limit the number of possible hosts, and might even make the Olympics impossible.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
BRINO is a meaningless concept.
If we are not a member of the EU then we have Brexited.
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect
It felt really good to get that off my sizeable chest!
First, and only, time I've made any comment on the rights and wrongs of this world cup. I've kept silent even to friends but I might show them that post if they press. Many of them know of my saga with the Qatar contract.
I posted similar sentiments yesterday. 2 of our top 4 Premier League clubs are owned by Gulf petro-states with human rights as bad as Qatar, and a third has a sponsorship deal worth £40 million a year with a petro-state. Why is that OK while a World Cup is not?
What on earth makes you think that critics of FIFA think that is OK? It stinks too.
Textbook whataboutery.
We don't see calls for boycots of games involving those teams though.
The Premier League is the most lucrative one in the world, and a highly successful part of the UK economy because of its amoral position on money. Not exclusive to sport though, as many other British businesses earn there, and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression, provided the money is good.
Sure, the Qatar World Cup is riddled with corruption and human rights abuses. That is part and parcel of dealing with that part of the world. Indeed "Yes Minister" had a whole episode on it 40 years ago. Nothing changes much:
My main problem with the World Cup being in Qatar is that it seems pretty dumb to build eight stadiums in such a small area. If they were going to have it out there, at least spread the games around a bit.
My main problem with the world cup in Qatar is that it was peak FIFA bribery. An absurd decision that everyone saw straight through. I honestly hope the tournament collapses into some kind of massive scandal as it would be the only way to stop FIFA from doing the same again in future.
There are, in fact, so many things wrong with awarding the World Cup to Qatar that every one of us could probably pick our own favourite and we'd still not have covered them all. It's one of those arguments you sometimes hear which is so bafflingly wrong in so many ways that it's very hard to argue against it because it is almost impossible to know where to start.
Lest we forget, Russia was awarded the World Cup before Qatar. As with many things regrettable - waging warfare by war crime, for example - once it has been got away with following a "What can we do?" shrug of the shoulders, others will follow on.
In an ideal world, the good guys would leave FIFA and set up their own organisation with founding ethics and expulsion for those who break them.
Similarly, a United Nations where a security council member can veto any meaningful sanction and carry on with its war crimes is not fit for purpose. It should be replaced by an alternative with teeth. Very sharp teeth.
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect
It felt really good to get that off my sizeable chest!
First, and only, time I've made any comment on the rights and wrongs of this world cup. I've kept silent even to friends but I might show them that post if they press. Many of them know of my saga with the Qatar contract.
I posted similar sentiments yesterday. 2 of our top 4 Premier League clubs are owned by Gulf petro-states with human rights as bad as Qatar, and a third has a sponsorship deal worth £40 million a year with a petro-state. Why is that OK while a World Cup is not?
What on earth makes you think that critics of FIFA think that is OK? It stinks too.
Textbook whataboutery.
We don't see calls for boycots of games involving those teams though.
The Premier League is the most lucrative one in the world, and a highly successful part of the UK economy because of its amoral position on money. Not exclusive to sport though, as many other British businesses earn there, and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression, provided the money is good.
Sure, the Qatar World Cup is riddled with corruption and human rights abuses. That is part and parcel of dealing with that part of the world. Indeed "Yes Minister" had a whole episode on it 40 years ago. Nothing changes much:
My main problem with the World Cup being in Qatar is that it seems pretty dumb to build eight stadiums in such a small area. If they were going to have it out there, at least spread the games around a bit.
I agree, and not just stadiums, but all the supporting infrastructure in hotels etc. Spreading the groups across other Gulf States would have been a better option.
One problem is that World Cups and Olympic games have become such oversized monsters that few countries can afford to host, and in practice the only MENA countries that can afford it are the Gulf States. The same problem goes for the Americas, where the only country that can afford to host is the USA, which has little football heritage.
I would favour a slimmed down WC and Olympics, but with beefed up qualifying rounds, that become regional tournaments in their own right. In effect I would make the group stages a preliminary tournament.
AIUI, relations between the Gulf states aren’t great, which rather stymies the idea of spreading the competition around them.
Sure, there is that.
I watched part of the AFCON tournament from Cameroon recently. There were a number of issues with venue changes, but it was a great spectacle of football.
Our global elite broadcasters and their camp followers would find it a shock hosting a WC in Cameroon, and it would be tricky for travelling supporters. It might be good for football though.
The tidal wave of corrupt money to build stadia etc would hammer Cameroon's polity though. And being so much bigger, proportionally, to their economy, would do a vast amount of damage.
Without the money - well, it's a nice dream. Bit like putting up a a permanent athletics stadium at Olypmpia in Greece and having all the Olympics there.
No, my point was that a World Cup should use existing stadia and infrastructure, and the media circus should downsize to fit, not the host build to fit.
Same goes for Olympics.
That would severely limit the number of possible hosts, and might even make the Olympics impossible.
Would that be so bad. Both the Olympics and the World Cup have become a locust circus. They demand vast resources, descend onto a venue and take huge amounts of cash, often leaving behind a worse mess than was there before anything was built. Cities left with unusable decaying facilities and a huge debt is the Olympic legacy, not sport.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
BRINO is a meaningless concept.
If we are not a member of the EU then we have Brexited.
If we eventually did end up having a Norway+ relationship with the EU (i.e., SM + CU), there would be a lot of people wondering what the point of Brexit was. Not least ultra-remain activists, who will be actively pushing the line we might as well rejoin and will be putting immense pressure on a Labour government to do so.
My missus started a new job last week. She now has a three mile commute. She doesn't drive so is using buses. To say the service is patchy in the extreme is generous. More than once she's been stood an hour waiting as bus after bus simply doesn't turn up.
When I was in my late teens I used the buses round here regularly and they were excellent. Regular, punctual, great coverage. Still LA-owned for some time after deregulation, I think.
Then Arriva came on the scene. I didn't realise how everything has degraded bus-wise until last week, I very rarely use them anymore. It's atrocious. Huge swathes of formerly busy routes have simply been dumped. I know Covid can't have helped, but still.
If we want to help people get to work, and encourage them to do that via public transport to help cut congestion and emissions, in West Yorkshire they are going about it in precisely the wrong way.
And don't get me started on the trains. I was escorted from the platform by a police officer in Leeds station the other week for telling the Northern Rail guy their level of service is 'a fucking disgrace'. I won't bore you with the litany of terrible service that led me to voice that opinion. Suffice to say I wasn't being aggressive, loud, noisy, or threatening anyone, but simply because I dropped the f-bomb in conversation I had violated some railway bylaw about foul language or something, so off I went. The copper who escorted me away was bemused, to say the least.
It feels like everything in this country is falling apart.
My dad is unwell at the moment so I'm making regular trips over the Pennines. The train service is just abominable. Beyond the joke. I have a list of tedious examples which I'll spare you, but they're exacerbated by having to travel with a couple of young kids as well, when you have to explain why we need to wait for another hour, and then why we have to sit on our cases instead of seats etc etc
Cancellations are routine; it's essentially a permanent 2/3 timetable. I've given up on trying to get to our Nottingham office (usually went over once a month from Manchester) because the service is so unreliable. It's never been as bad in all my adult life.
Yet they waste £100 billion to save 20 mins London to Birmingham rather than give the rest of the country a decent rail service.
It's not about the 20 minutes, it's about freeing up capacity on the West Coast mainline to help give other parts of the country a better rail service. Of course it's not either/or anyway, the whole rail system needs upgrading and HS2 is just a (necessary) part of that.
Symptomatic of the wider British Problem.
"Why won't businesses invest in productivity?"
Because they take their cue from the British State. And we'd rather not do things that only pay off over decades.
Buses are inefficient. Slow on the road and a driver moving 70 people at a time, tops.
Trams and trains end up much more efficient, but you have to invest upfront.
NickPalmer said: " Outside the jobs, I've not really developed any major cultural interests. Do I start taking up walking, theatre, music when I'm 80?"
Cross country skiing in the winter, Nick, to begin with. It's about as good an exercise as there is.
Harder in Surrey than WA though!
I went to Washington State to go skiing once (Methow). They had their warmest January week on record...
The place to go in the UK is not far from Rochdale's pad at Clashindarroch Forest, nr Huntly. I think they get 30-60 days a year (pisted).
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
Not sure what relevance a prison in Surrey has to Scottish inmates? Has HMPSS got a similar plan, or are they sticking with sending trans prisoners who are too violent for male prisons to female prisons?
I'd like to echo Leon's praise of the post on the last thread from Northern Monkey. Exceptional. Like Roger McGough in his early days. Being able to express yourself like that while Nadine Dorries rose to Culture Secretary must have been torture.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
Not based on Starmer's speech today they won't. He is taking a firm cut immigration and no free movement line to win back the redwall seats.
Indeed the ERG are more aligned to Starmer's new hardline immigration position than Sunak and Hunt's if the latter want a Swiss style SU deal.plus free movement (which in reality they are not pushing further as they know it wouldn't get past the ERG and redwall Tory MPs)
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
BRINO is a meaningless concept.
If we are not a member of the EU then we have Brexited.
If we eventually did end up having a Norway+ relationship with the EU (i.e., SM + CU), there would be a lot of people wondering what the point of Brexit was. Not least ultra-remain activists, who will be actively pushing the line we might as well rejoin and will be putting immense pressure on a Labour government to do so.
There are two chunks that countries can join - a free trade area (EEA &/or CU), and a political union (the EU). Surely as the question asked was should Britain leave the EU we were asked about the political bit - that was the point in leaving in that we didn't want it.
What's more, the Farage and Hannan group repeatedly said through the referendum and before it that leaving the EU was not leaving the free trade part. They have changed their minds since then, but were very clear at the time.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
BRINO is a meaningless concept.
If we are not a member of the EU then we have Brexited.
If we eventually did end up having a Norway+ relationship with the EU (i.e., SM + CU), there would be a lot of people wondering what the point of Brexit was. Not least ultra-remain activists, who will be actively pushing the line we might as well rejoin and will be putting immense pressure on a Labour government to do so.
Whatever.
Look at the ballot paper. Huge error as it may have been not to define what we were voting for (what could possibly go wrong, eh?) nevertheless we are where we are - member of the EU yes/no. We chose no the rest is irrelevant - Norway, Switzerland, FOM, EFTA/EEA/FIFA. If we are not a member of the EU then we have Brexited.
Let everyone bitch and moan about what flavour of Brexit we end up with. And they will.
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect
It felt really good to get that off my sizeable chest!
First, and only, time I've made any comment on the rights and wrongs of this world cup. I've kept silent even to friends but I might show them that post if they press. Many of them know of my saga with the Qatar contract.
I posted similar sentiments yesterday. 2 of our top 4 Premier League clubs are owned by Gulf petro-states with human rights as bad as Qatar, and a third has a sponsorship deal worth £40 million a year with a petro-state. Why is that OK while a World Cup is not?
What on earth makes you think that critics of FIFA think that is OK? It stinks too.
Textbook whataboutery.
We don't see calls for boycots of games involving those teams though.
The Premier League is the most lucrative one in the world, and a highly successful part of the UK economy because of its amoral position on money. Not exclusive to sport though, as many other British businesses earn there, and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression, provided the money is good.
Sure, the Qatar World Cup is riddled with corruption and human rights abuses. That is part and parcel of dealing with that part of the world. Indeed "Yes Minister" had a whole episode on it 40 years ago. Nothing changes much:
My main problem with the World Cup being in Qatar is that it seems pretty dumb to build eight stadiums in such a small area. If they were going to have it out there, at least spread the games around a bit.
I agree, and not just stadiums, but all the supporting infrastructure in hotels etc. Spreading the groups across other Gulf States would have been a better option.
One problem is that World Cups and Olympic games have become such oversized monsters that few countries can afford to host, and in practice the only MENA countries that can afford it are the Gulf States. The same problem goes for the Americas, where the only country that can afford to host is the USA, which has little football heritage.
I would favour a slimmed down WC and Olympics, but with beefed up qualifying rounds, that become regional tournaments in their own right. In effect I would make the group stages a preliminary tournament.
AIUI, relations between the Gulf states aren’t great, which rather stymies the idea of spreading the competition around them.
Sure, there is that.
I watched part of the AFCON tournament from Cameroon recently. There were a number of issues with venue changes, but it was a great spectacle of football.
Our global elite broadcasters and their camp followers would find it a shock hosting a WC in Cameroon, and it would be tricky for travelling supporters. It might be good for football though.
The tidal wave of corrupt money to build stadia etc would hammer Cameroon's polity though. And being so much bigger, proportionally, to their economy, would do a vast amount of damage.
Without the money - well, it's a nice dream. Bit like putting up a a permanent athletics stadium at Olypmpia in Greece and having all the Olympics there.
No, my point was that a World Cup should use existing stadia and infrastructure, and the media circus should downsize to fit, not the host build to fit.
Same goes for Olympics.
That would severely limit the number of possible hosts, and might even make the Olympics impossible.
The Olympics could be in the world's city, London, every four years, since they were delivered brilliantly in 2012.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
Not based on Starmer's speech today they won't. He is taking a firm cut immigration and no free movement line to win back the redwall seats.
Indeed the ERG are more aligned to Starmer's new hardline immigration position than Sunak and Hunt's if the latter want a Swiss style EU deal plus free movement (which in reality they are not pushing further as they know it wouldn't get past the ERG and redwall Tory MPs)
Starmer to promise to end our 'immigration dependency'
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
Not sure what relevance a prison in Surrey has to Scottish inmates? Has HMPSS got a similar plan, or are they sticking with sending trans prisoners who are too violent for male prisons to female prisons?
And that news item proves the point that it is the criminal world view, and not the gender of the criminal that is the issue. A trans woman beat up a bloke. I'm going to bet that if that trans woman had not identified as a woman he wouldn't have been sitting around playing canasta but would likely have beaten up if not that bloke then another one. Or a prison guard.
I really am not sure what point you are making about 11 trans women prisoners in Scottish jails, some of whom are (shock, horror) violent.
As for E wings they sound like a great idea and the sooner the Scottish govt adopts them the better.
But that is a comment on the Scottish government, not trans women.
There are, in fact, so many things wrong with awarding the World Cup to Qatar that every one of us could probably pick our own favourite and we'd still not have covered them all. It's one of those arguments you sometimes hear which is so bafflingly wrong in so many ways that it's very hard to argue against it because it is almost impossible to know where to start.
The UEA and Oman as a joint bid? Morocco (OK, Arabic-speaking) have bid more than once too.
Not the Middle East or Arab (and in UEFA) but on its doorstep: Turkey would be able to make a decent fist of hosting a World Cup.
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
I'd like to echo Leon's praise of the post on the last thread from Northern Monkey. Exceptional. Like Roger McGough in his early days. Being able to express yourself like that while Nadine Dorries rose to Culture Secretary must have been torture.
Very kind of you, thank you.
Thanks @Leon and everyone else who said nice things too. I never expected it to garner such praise!
My missus started a new job last week. She now has a three mile commute. She doesn't drive so is using buses. To say the service is patchy in the extreme is generous. More than once she's been stood an hour waiting as bus after bus simply doesn't turn up.
When I was in my late teens I used the buses round here regularly and they were excellent. Regular, punctual, great coverage. Still LA-owned for some time after deregulation, I think.
Then Arriva came on the scene. I didn't realise how everything has degraded bus-wise until last week, I very rarely use them anymore. It's atrocious. Huge swathes of formerly busy routes have simply been dumped. I know Covid can't have helped, but still.
If we want to help people get to work, and encourage them to do that via public transport to help cut congestion and emissions, in West Yorkshire they are going about it in precisely the wrong way.
And don't get me started on the trains. I was escorted from the platform by a police officer in Leeds station the other week for telling the Northern Rail guy their level of service is 'a fucking disgrace'. I won't bore you with the litany of terrible service that led me to voice that opinion. Suffice to say I wasn't being aggressive, loud, noisy, or threatening anyone, but simply because I dropped the f-bomb in conversation I had violated some railway bylaw about foul language or something, so off I went. The copper who escorted me away was bemused, to say the least.
It feels like everything in this country is falling apart.
My dad is unwell at the moment so I'm making regular trips over the Pennines. The train service is just abominable. Beyond the joke. I have a list of tedious examples which I'll spare you, but they're exacerbated by having to travel with a couple of young kids as well, when you have to explain why we need to wait for another hour, and then why we have to sit on our cases instead of seats etc etc
Cancellations are routine; it's essentially a permanent 2/3 timetable. I've given up on trying to get to our Nottingham office (usually went over once a month from Manchester) because the service is so unreliable. It's never been as bad in all my adult life.
Yet they waste £100 billion to save 20 mins London to Birmingham rather than give the rest of the country a decent rail service.
It's not about the 20 minutes, it's about freeing up capacity on the West Coast mainline to help give other parts of the country a better rail service. Of course it's not either/or anyway, the whole rail system needs upgrading and HS2 is just a (necessary) part of that.
Symptomatic of the wider British Problem.
"Why won't businesses invest in productivity?"
Because they take their cue from the British State. And we'd rather not do things that only pay off over decades.
Buses are inefficient. Slow on the road and a driver moving 70 people at a time, tops.
Trams and trains end up much more efficient, but you have to invest upfront.
I raise an objection to your last two sentences: fixed track is efficient, but only where there is sufficient demand that you are not carrying empty air most of the time. There's relatively few places in the country where that is the case. In a Greater Manchester context (because that is where I am, though you can no doubt extrapolate to your own area), that means one end of the line has to be Manchester - or, at a push, Manchester Airport - and the other end, ideally, should also be a significant attractor (e.g. Altrincham, Bury). Suggesting tram lines which go from, say, Oldham to Ashton is a non-starter: there simply isn't the demand and you won't come close to covering costs. There never will be the demand. But you do need to provide public transport from Oldham to Ashton, and this is where bus comes in, because costs are a lot lower (and also because bus covers a different market).
Also, tram will only be efficient if it's an off-highway scheme. On-highway tram (like Nottingham's) are no more efficient than bus. There may still be an argument for them on journey quality basis - because journey quality has a significant impact on mode choice - but for efficiency - moving large numbers of people quickly - you need dedicated infrastructure (this doesn't actually need to be rail: GM's Leigh/Salford/Manchester busway provides a journey quality and efficiency which is just as good as tram because it is largely off-highway and also because the infrastructure is engineered to provide journey quality.)
tldr: rail is only surprisingly rarely the answer; bus has a significant role.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
BRINO is a meaningless concept.
If we are not a member of the EU then we have Brexited.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
During the referendum, the Leave campaign talked about the UK being in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey. Yet now the ERG would view that as "BrINO". The hardline Brexiteers view any discussion with the EU as a betrayal, and Sunak has cravenly given in to them. Such ideological purity will doom them, doom the Conservative Party and (most importantly!) doom the country's economy.
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
During the referendum, the Leave campaign talked about the UK being in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey. Yet now the ERG would view that as "BrINO". The hardline Brexiteers view any discussion with the EU as a betrayal, and Sunak has cravenly given in to them. Such ideological purity will doom them, doom the Conservative Party and (most importantly!) doom the country's economy.
The tories will rediscover their cynical pragmatism at some point and pivot to BRINO/rejoin.
My missus started a new job last week. She now has a three mile commute. She doesn't drive so is using buses. To say the service is patchy in the extreme is generous. More than once she's been stood an hour waiting as bus after bus simply doesn't turn up.
When I was in my late teens I used the buses round here regularly and they were excellent. Regular, punctual, great coverage. Still LA-owned for some time after deregulation, I think.
Then Arriva came on the scene. I didn't realise how everything has degraded bus-wise until last week, I very rarely use them anymore. It's atrocious. Huge swathes of formerly busy routes have simply been dumped. I know Covid can't have helped, but still.
If we want to help people get to work, and encourage them to do that via public transport to help cut congestion and emissions, in West Yorkshire they are going about it in precisely the wrong way.
And don't get me started on the trains. I was escorted from the platform by a police officer in Leeds station the other week for telling the Northern Rail guy their level of service is 'a fucking disgrace'. I won't bore you with the litany of terrible service that led me to voice that opinion. Suffice to say I wasn't being aggressive, loud, noisy, or threatening anyone, but simply because I dropped the f-bomb in conversation I had violated some railway bylaw about foul language or something, so off I went. The copper who escorted me away was bemused, to say the least.
It feels like everything in this country is falling apart.
In my experience its fine for Revenue Protection to be aggressive to you but they have absolutely zero tolerance for anything back. I've had two or three incidents when it wasn't possible for me to buy a ticket (queue too long and machine out of order, and the guard couldn't dispense one either) and they've been very rude and itching to give me a penalty fare rather than buying one at the terminal gate.
Train companies seem to view their passengers as, at best, entirely incidental to the service they are providing and, at worst, suspicious and hectoring towards them.
Surely a portion of it is down to over zealous staff. The person selling you the ticket will get a bonus as part of the amount of extra revenue he pulls in so will be likely to want to fleece you as much as possible.
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect
It felt really good to get that off my sizeable chest!
First, and only, time I've made any comment on the rights and wrongs of this world cup. I've kept silent even to friends but I might show them that post if they press. Many of them know of my saga with the Qatar contract.
I posted similar sentiments yesterday. 2 of our top 4 Premier League clubs are owned by Gulf petro-states with human rights as bad as Qatar, and a third has a sponsorship deal worth £40 million a year with a petro-state. Why is that OK while a World Cup is not?
What on earth makes you think that critics of FIFA think that is OK? It stinks too.
Textbook whataboutery.
We don't see calls for boycots of games involving those teams though.
The Premier League is the most lucrative one in the world, and a highly successful part of the UK economy because of its amoral position on money. Not exclusive to sport though, as many other British businesses earn there, and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression, provided the money is good.
Sure, the Qatar World Cup is riddled with corruption and human rights abuses. That is part and parcel of dealing with that part of the world. Indeed "Yes Minister" had a whole episode on it 40 years ago. Nothing changes much:
My main problem with the World Cup being in Qatar is that it seems pretty dumb to build eight stadiums in such a small area. If they were going to have it out there, at least spread the games around a bit.
My main problem with the world cup in Qatar is that it was peak FIFA bribery. An absurd decision that everyone saw straight through. I honestly hope the tournament collapses into some kind of massive scandal as it would be the only way to stop FIFA from doing the same again in future.
I would like to see the final between two teams from countries sufficiently enlightened to instruct the teams to wear controversial (to some) arm bands on all team members. Refuse to remove them and see the final cancelled as the match officials, FIFA (in view of the honesty of the organisation over the years should that be 'Thiefer'?) and participants can not reach a compromise acceptable to the hosts of the competition and the organiser of the competition. In advance the two teams should agree to play the match at another venue in the near future, with or without any recognition from the governing body.
Fat chance of tehm jeapordising the huge bonuses etc
I'd say Brexit is in jeopardy on current trends and the ERG aren't smart enough to see round the corner.
Surely Brexit was leaving the European Union. As it said on the ballot paper. We did that, we're not going back. So how is it in jeopardy? Oh yeah - because BREXIT is whatever unicorn people want to believe in. Thats all in jeopardy because unicorns aren't real.
Which you voted for.
Your shrill histrionic posts add absolutely nothing to the debate.
Yes it does.
A remorseful Brexit buyer confirming he was hoodwinked by cheats and liars is a more compelling signal than moaning Remainers like me claiming we were right all along.
Brexit's single function was to facilitate Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mission accomplished, move on!
There's no merit in flipping round and hurling clichés and exclamations at those who stand by their vote, or have suggestions for a more practical way forward.
Of course, I can't stop him - and he'll become a totem for Remainers who believe they were right all along to champion - but everyone else will ignore it.
Again, I come back to your very specific claim - that Brexit is in jeopardy. It is not, if you use the definition of Brexit that actually has definition - the act of leaving the EU. Whilst I regret my vote because of what we have done since, leaving the EU itself is not the cause of our woes. We could have done a Norway or a Switzerland after Brexit and we would be fine.
Feel free to ignore me. Its that attitude which further accelerates the swing towards "Brexit was a mistake" being such a popular opinion to hold.
Could be wrong here, but CR's reasoning might be similar to Alistair Meeks in his latest blog post. If the Tories can't get a lasting settlement on Brexit because the ERG completely refuse to comprise, Labour will come in and gradually salami slice it away till we really have BRINO. At that point - under immense pressure from Labour party members and ultra-remain activists - Labour will declare that we are so closely aligned economically with the EU we might as well rejoin to "get our seat on the table back." I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
During the referendum, the Leave campaign talked about the UK being in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey. Yet now the ERG would view that as "BrINO". The hardline Brexiteers view any discussion with the EU as a betrayal, and Sunak has cravenly given in to them. Such ideological purity will doom them, doom the Conservative Party and (most importantly!) doom the country's economy.
The tories will rediscover their cynical pragmatism at some point and pivot to BRINO/rejoin.
Entertainingly, Sunak appears to have capitulated to the mouth-foamer wing fearing for his position. If he felt secure in the job he would have said "this is the hand I have been dealt, let me play it". Instead he points out the hand, they go nuts, he backs down.
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
"And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives"
The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members.
Free movement is seen as a problem in Switzerland. It remains one of the main sticking points in Swiss/EU relations. Switzerland has a compromise solution where it does have some form of free movement, but Swiss employers are legally obliged to prioritise Swiss-based job seekers. Some in Switzerland feel that's inadequate, and the Swiss People's Party made big gains in the country's 2015 elections as a result... although they fell back again in the 2019 election. The matter remains a live issue in Swiss politics.
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
Not sure what relevance a prison in Surrey has to Scottish inmates? Has HMPSS got a similar plan, or are they sticking with sending trans prisoners who are too violent for male prisons to female prisons?
As for E wings they sound like a great idea and the sooner the Scottish govt adopts them the better.
But that is a comment on the Scottish government, not trans women.
Yes, the Scottish Government that is rushing through an ill-thought out reform to Gender Recognition, and has ignored the interim Cass review. That Scottish government.
For example:
Shona Robison is asked by Labour MSP Pauline McNeill what evidence could be presented in court to prove that someone has falsely declared they would live in the acquired gender. Robison cannot answer. #GRRBill
“We want to make getting a Gender Recognition Certificate like changing your passport”
“This amendment will make getting a GRC like changing your passport”
“Vote it down! It’s against the principles of the bill!’
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is above all about legislating for a belief, in as purist a way as possible. It is still not clear how far the Scottish Government, Green Party members apart, understands that. Before that belief every other consideration must fall away, both for its most committed believers and, more surprisingly perhaps, for those trailing in their wake.
Unfortunately there are a lot of unionists supporting it as well, crapness is not confined to SNP, they are in fact the talent in Scotland and the dumb unionists are following them through being thick as mince.
SLAB have been largely complicit in passing the thing - only SCON have been resisting - but some SLAM MSPs are now tabling amendments which is exposing the bill for the omnishambles it is. It’s a strange hill for Sturgeon to die on.
Indeed it is very unpopular and hopefully topples her.
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
Not sure what relevance a prison in Surrey has to Scottish inmates? Has HMPSS got a similar plan, or are they sticking with sending trans prisoners who are too violent for male prisons to female prisons?
As for E wings they sound like a great idea and the sooner the Scottish govt adopts them the better.
But that is a comment on the Scottish government, not trans women.
Yes, the Scottish Government that is rushing through an ill-thought out reform to Gender Recognition, and has ignored the interim Cass review. That Scottish government.
So blame the government, not the trans women prisoners.
The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members.
Free movement is seen as a problem in Switzerland. It remains one of the main sticking points in Swiss/EU relations. Switzerland has a compromise solution where it does have some form of free movement, but Swiss employers are legally obliged to prioritise Swiss-based job seekers. Some in Switzerland feel that's inadequate, and the Swiss People's Party made big gains in the country's 2015 elections as a result... although they fell back again in the 2019 election. The matter remains a live issue in Swiss politics.
Its also a live issue inside many big EU states such as Germany! The UK is hardly alone raising concerns, and we could have worked on the inside at changes. Notable that so many of the things the leave campaign said was impossible for EU states with regards to borders has been done. They either didn't know what could be done, or lied about what could be done, or both. We have a big problem with weaponised ignorance.
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
Not sure what relevance a prison in Surrey has to Scottish inmates? Has HMPSS got a similar plan, or are they sticking with sending trans prisoners who are too violent for male prisons to female prisons?
As for E wings they sound like a great idea and the sooner the Scottish govt adopts them the better.
But that is a comment on the Scottish government, not trans women.
Yes, the Scottish Government that is rushing through an ill-thought out reform to Gender Recognition, and has ignored the interim Cass review. That Scottish government.
So blame the government, not the trans women prisoners.
The problem is that criticism of the Scottish government on the issue is treated by Heathener's ilk as criticism of trans people.
The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members.
Free movement is seen as a problem in Switzerland. It remains one of the main sticking points in Swiss/EU relations. Switzerland has a compromise solution where it does have some form of free movement, but Swiss employers are legally obliged to prioritise Swiss-based job seekers. Some in Switzerland feel that's inadequate, and the Swiss People's Party made big gains in the country's 2015 elections as a result... although they fell back again in the 2019 election. The matter remains a live issue in Swiss politics.
Of course it will. Immigration will always be a political issue everywhere, especially as it is such an easy scapegoat for other problems. The point is that it hasn't prevented the Swiss from adopting a far closer economic relationship with the EU than we have.
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
Not sure what relevance a prison in Surrey has to Scottish inmates? Has HMPSS got a similar plan, or are they sticking with sending trans prisoners who are too violent for male prisons to female prisons?
As for E wings they sound like a great idea and the sooner the Scottish govt adopts them the better.
But that is a comment on the Scottish government, not trans women.
Yes, the Scottish Government that is rushing through an ill-thought out reform to Gender Recognition, and has ignored the interim Cass review. That Scottish government.
So blame the government, not the trans women prisoners.
The problem is that criticism of the Scottish government on the issue is treated by Heathener's ilk as criticism of trans people.
I can't speak for anyone else's views on the matter; it is an issue where it is challenging enough to have one's own views, frankly.
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
Not sure what relevance a prison in Surrey has to Scottish inmates? Has HMPSS got a similar plan, or are they sticking with sending trans prisoners who are too violent for male prisons to female prisons?
As for E wings they sound like a great idea and the sooner the Scottish govt adopts them the better.
But that is a comment on the Scottish government, not trans women.
Yes, the Scottish Government that is rushing through an ill-thought out reform to Gender Recognition, and has ignored the interim Cass review. That Scottish government.
So blame the government, not the trans women prisoners.
I am blaming the government and the omnishambles of a policy they are legislating:
Listening to the debate at @SP_EHRCJ committee which is considering amendments to the Gender Recognition Reform bill, it’s so clear that this is poor law making..
..It is rooted in the belief that there is such a thing as gender identity That gender identity is more significant in all aspects of life (and law) than a person’s sex That a person can acquire a new legal gender identity by filling in a form..
But there is no legal definition of gender identity or living in acquired gender. Nothing. The bill is silent. The Cabinet Secretary does not have one. Nor her civil servants who drafted the bill. @pauline4glasgow asked the question today and was met with waffle
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
Not sure what relevance a prison in Surrey has to Scottish inmates? Has HMPSS got a similar plan, or are they sticking with sending trans prisoners who are too violent for male prisons to female prisons?
As for E wings they sound like a great idea and the sooner the Scottish govt adopts them the better.
But that is a comment on the Scottish government, not trans women.
Yes, the Scottish Government that is rushing through an ill-thought out reform to Gender Recognition, and has ignored the interim Cass review. That Scottish government.
For example:
Shona Robison is asked by Labour MSP Pauline McNeill what evidence could be presented in court to prove that someone has falsely declared they would live in the acquired gender. Robison cannot answer. #GRRBill
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
Not sure what relevance a prison in Surrey has to Scottish inmates? Has HMPSS got a similar plan, or are they sticking with sending trans prisoners who are too violent for male prisons to female prisons?
As for E wings they sound like a great idea and the sooner the Scottish govt adopts them the better.
But that is a comment on the Scottish government, not trans women.
Yes, the Scottish Government that is rushing through an ill-thought out reform to Gender Recognition, and has ignored the interim Cass review. That Scottish government.
So blame the government, not the trans women prisoners.
I am blaming the government and the omnishambles of a policy they are legislating:
Listening to the debate at @SP_EHRCJ committee which is considering amendments to the Gender Recognition Reform bill, it’s so clear that this is poor law making..
..It is rooted in the belief that there is such a thing as gender identity That gender identity is more significant in all aspects of life (and law) than a person’s sex That a person can acquire a new legal gender identity by filling in a form..
But there is no legal definition of gender identity or living in acquired gender. Nothing. The bill is silent. The Cabinet Secretary does not have one. Nor her civil servants who drafted the bill. @pauline4glasgow asked the question today and was met with waffle
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
... The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from…several posters on here
Citation required.
Anyone who might dare, dare, to suggest some men are faking in order to get put in women's prisons, for one.
Going to prison appears to be an epiphany for many transgender inmates. In Scotland half the current transgender inmate population only realised their true gender upon conviction…
Great stat and headline.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
Not sure what relevance a prison in Surrey has to Scottish inmates? Has HMPSS got a similar plan, or are they sticking with sending trans prisoners who are too violent for male prisons to female prisons?
As for E wings they sound like a great idea and the sooner the Scottish govt adopts them the better.
But that is a comment on the Scottish government, not trans women.
Yes, the Scottish Government that is rushing through an ill-thought out reform to Gender Recognition, and has ignored the interim Cass review. That Scottish government.
So blame the government, not the trans women prisoners.
The problem is that criticism of the Scottish government on the issue is treated by Heathener's ilk as criticism of trans people.
Yep.
The "villains" of the piece are
- Trans Rights Activists who champion "no debate" and try to drown out opposition and dismiss women's concerns as "not valid" - Politicians who have drunk the kool-aid and mindlessly chant "Trans women are women" without heed to the consequences (most of whom I suspect simply have not thought it through). - Male sex offenders who exploit "gender change" to gain access to the female prison estate - something the Scottish Government seems keen to facilitate (again, almost certainly unintentionally).
The people I feel concern for are: - Children put on a medicalised pathway through the "affirmative care" model that will lead to a lifetime of sterility and continued medication, when an alternative diagnosis might have led to a happier, healthier outcome. England is stopping this, Scotland carrying on regardless. - Trans adults who want to lead their lives peacefully and happily but are being "represented" by violent, misogynistic and homophobic TRAs - Female athletes cheated out of their wins by mediocre male athletes who discover winning is much easier as a woman than as a man. While some may sincerely be Trans, they are welcome to compete among peers of their own natal sex.
Incidentally, an ex-colleague went to do a job at a major Samsung factory for a few weeks. Apparently he had to hand in his passport, and lived in a hotel within the factory. It seemed to be a rather odd experience for him.
I wouldn't work for anyone anywhere where they demanded I hand my passport in.
I'm surprised people do. You need to be able to get out and leave at any time, if you need to.
When I did my InterRail holiday around Europe in 1981, many hotels/B&Bs made you hand in your passport overnight.
It was fairly standard in Europe back in late 70's / 80's.
... so I know Qatar has issues. I've known it for years and I think I've said so on here. But it would be complete hypocrisy of me to make a stand now when I am a HUGE fan of Qatar Airways. Simply outstanding and in my view the best in the world. They are a marvellous airline for the passenger. Less so for the crew.
I had a contract to work in Qatar and I pulled out after signing but before the contract came into effect. Wow did I see a vicious side of the Qataris with whom I dealt! I don't totally blame them but I had done some digging around and found out some things which made me very uneasy about taking up the post.
I mean, I've seen for instance the reports about migrant workers having their passports confiscated on arrival. But this is the norm for ALL expat workers. Your passport is confiscated on arrival so you are held in the country. Someone I know escaped across the desert at night into the UAE.
When I breached contract someone came after me: told me they would ruin me and that I would never again work in the west. Seriously.
On the other hand, I do also see why Qataris are getting irritated, even irate, at some of the western grandstanding. The time for criticising Qatar's human rights was TWELVE YEARS AGO not twelve hours before the tournament.
And whilst I am a huge advocate of gay rights the west is staggeringly hypocritical. The hatred towards trans people spewing forth from the Daily Mail and from several posters on here renders any criticism of Qatar UTTER hypocrisy.
And we have soaked up dodgy Middle Eastern, and Russian, and Chinese, money when it suited us. Look at the top Premier League clubs awash with iffy money. Oh suddenly we're getting all moralistic.
And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives and yet lecture another country on their ethics? We rape the earth, rip out the rainforests, plunder other countries, enslave and subjugate and then suddenly we are the ones to take the moral high ground?
What a load of shit.
Get your own house in order Britain before you dare start lecturing Qatar.
"And we live drunken and debauched and sleazy and corrupt and twisted lives"
On Brexit, I think it's worth stepping back a bit and thinking about why we have ended up with the relationship with the EU that we have, relative to other European countries. The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine. Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join. Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money. Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines. What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there. The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe. That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
You fail to see the point of view of most of those that voted for brexit. Yes the economy of the country maybe worse of out of the eu however as they weren't getting a slice of that extra economy frankly why should they care. We are now out we still have high employment the only difference now is those at the bottom end of the scale are now finding their pay rising above minimum wage levels for the first time in a couple of decades. I am talking here of hospitality staff, shop workers etc.
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
Wages are going up in cash terms but they're not keeping up with inflation so they're going down in real terms, and the OBR expects to see the biggest ever falls in real incomes this year and next. Brexit isn't the main factor but it isn't helping. It's great if low paid people feel like they are getting higher incomes but in real terms most of them aren't and if the economy is permanently smaller then they will feel it ultimately as there will be less money to spend on public services. It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit. Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
Comments
It's one of those arguments you sometimes hear which is so bafflingly wrong in so many ways that it's very hard to argue against it because it is almost impossible to know where to start.
https://medium.com/@cyclefree2/why-this-7221bc795af0
The gender debate seems to me to combine two elements: belief and a fight about power. By gender debate I don’t mean the existence of gender dysphoria. What its cause is and how to treat it is a matter for experts and those with such a condition. People with it should be helped in every way possible to live full and fulfilling lives. No, what interests me is the way this has been conflated into and tied to a wider gender ideology — one which thinks that all have a gender which is different to sex, that it should be the way in which men and women are categorised and that this should be determined solely by an individual’s decision without any regard to anything or anyone else.
It won't wash. Brexit is done (Yes Scott, it really is). We are no longer part of the political union of the EU and we no longer pay money in, nor receive money out. We continue to trade but its not as easy as before. The rational thing to do is recognise the problems and take action to make it easier. I think Sunak and Hunt will do that and I think Starmer will too.
There are, in fact, so many things wrong with awarding the World Cup to Qatar that every one of us could probably pick our own favourite and we'd still not have covered them all.
It's one of those arguments you sometimes hear which is so bafflingly wrong in so many ways that it's very hard to argue against it because it is almost impossible to know where to start.</blockquote
do you think there was a better Arab nation (or pair) that could have hosted the event...genuinely interested,
Reports of an attack at an oil terminal in Novorossiysk, located near a major base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, will likely incite concerns among Russian commanders, reported the U.K. Defense Ministry.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1594984926658854912
If you get classified as a troublemaker early in the interaction then it becomes very difficult to get a fair hearing and turn the situation around.
On bus in particular, one of the issues is simple economics: car ownership is a lot higher than it was back in the 80s, and so journeys which back then were made by bus are now made by cars - meaning that farebox revenue doesn't cover the costs of providing the service as often as it used to. That is, however, reversing. I'm pretty confident the bus offer in the urban north will be better in ten years time than it is now - though for reasons of simple economic will probably never return to what it was in the early 80s (it should be said, though, that my hazy memory of buses in the early 80s was that they were cheap but not necessarily terribly reliable and that the vehicles themselves were horribly dirty. Deregulation hasn't been entirely negative.)
But for so many, "Brexit" wasn't leaving the EU, it was the moon on a stick they could get after doing so. Whether their goal was massive tax avoidance, or sending foreigners home, or freedom from the CFP, or more money for local services, or better paid more secure jobs, or whatever, that was Brexit.
That "Brexit" isn't done because most of those definitions are contradictory and ill-defined. What Casino flags as being under threat isn't Brexit because as you say, we left. Its "Brexit" under threat, whichever preferred unicorn is supported.
Why are so many people swinging behind Brexit being a mistake? Because we were sold a mirage. And it will never be delivered just like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow will never actually be in hand.
I don't know how likely it is, but I think it's possible and it would very much be the ERG's fault,
Same goes for Olympics.
What we do after Brexit is not Brexit. Norway is not a member of the EU. Switzerland. Iceland. Turkey. All have better trading arrangements with the EEU and CU (neither of which are the EU) than the UK currently does.
So Casino can say what he wants about me. My position, my definition of what BrExit actually means - is clear and logical and legal. And his is not.
Yes. indeed.
https://www.starlink.com/maritime
Not the Middle East or Arab (and in UEFA) but on its doorstep: Turkey would be able to make a decent fist of hosting a World Cup.
What it means is that five and a half trans women only realised their true gender upon conviction.
There as of last month were 11 trans women and five trans men in Scottish prisons. Out of a prison population of 7,500.
But this is obviously a huge and unmanageable problem, right? So why not have a special wing for trans women. Oh wait, there is a plan for E wings which are precisely that. And the first one is already open.
https://www.prisonphone.co.uk/blog/hmp-downview-the-first-prison-with-a-wing-dedicated-to-transgender-inmates/
If we are not a member of the EU then we have Brexited.
In an ideal world, the good guys would leave FIFA and set up their own organisation with founding ethics and expulsion for those who break them.
Similarly, a United Nations where a security council member can veto any meaningful sanction and carry on with its war crimes is not fit for purpose. It should be replaced by an alternative with teeth. Very sharp teeth.
"Why won't businesses invest in productivity?"
Because they take their cue from the British State. And we'd rather not do things that only pay off over decades.
Buses are inefficient. Slow on the road and a driver moving 70 people at a time, tops.
Trams and trains end up much more efficient, but you have to invest upfront.
The place to go in the UK is not far from Rochdale's pad at Clashindarroch Forest, nr Huntly. I think they get 30-60 days a year (pisted).
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/trans-woman-battered-male-inmate-28511707.amp
Indeed the ERG are more aligned to Starmer's new hardline immigration position than Sunak and Hunt's if the latter want a Swiss style SU deal.plus free movement (which in reality they are not pushing further as they know it wouldn't get past the ERG and redwall Tory MPs)
What's more, the Farage and Hannan group repeatedly said through the referendum and before it that leaving the EU was not leaving the free trade part. They have changed their minds since then, but were very clear at the time.
Look at the ballot paper. Huge error as it may have been not to define what we were voting for (what could possibly go wrong, eh?) nevertheless we are where we are - member of the EU yes/no. We chose no the rest is irrelevant - Norway, Switzerland, FOM, EFTA/EEA/FIFA. If we are not a member of the EU then we have Brexited.
Let everyone bitch and moan about what flavour of Brexit we end up with. And they will.
(I'm not biased at all, mind.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63707941
And that news item proves the point that it is the criminal world view, and not the gender of the criminal that is the issue. A trans woman beat up a bloke. I'm going to bet that if that trans woman had not identified as a woman he wouldn't have been sitting around playing canasta but would likely have beaten up if not that bloke then another one. Or a prison guard.
I really am not sure what point you are making about 11 trans women prisoners in Scottish jails, some of whom are (shock, horror) violent.
As for E wings they sound like a great idea and the sooner the Scottish govt adopts them the better.
But that is a comment on the Scottish government, not trans women.
Not the Middle East or Arab (and in UEFA) but on its doorstep: Turkey would be able to make a decent fist of hosting a World Cup.
just dont mention the Kurds...
The most important point is that most European countries are members of the EU. Whatever the pluses and minuses of membership, for most countries in Europe the benefits are seen as outweighing the costs. And many European countries that are not members are desperate to join, including Ukraine.
Let's look at the European countries that aren't EU members. Ignoring micro states and the countries in Eastern Europe queuing to join we have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. Turkey isn't a member because the EU doesn't really want it to join.
Norway isn't a member because it has loads of oil money and the population thinks that it would have to transfer too much of that to the EU. The Norwegian elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close relationship that protects their money.
Switzerland isn't a member because the public think their banking industry might be at risk if they join, and because they have a long history of localised democracy and distrust of outsiders. The Swiss elite wants to join anyway. They have negotiated a very close if rather complicated relationship that protects their red lines.
What about us? Our elite also thinks we should be EU members. The public wants (or at least wanted) us outside because of concerns about sovereignty and immigration. The sovereignty issue can be fudged via an EFTA type relationship, although the reality is that while that protects us from ever closer union, in some ways it leaves us with less sovereignty than as an EU member, as it means we will follow rules we have no say in setting. That's just the nature of sovereignty in an interconnected world. I would guess if that were the only issue we would be in an EFTA type set up or heading there.
The bigger problem is posed by immigration. As long as we won't allow some form of free movement, we won't have as close a trading relationship with the EU as Norway or Switzerland do, where free movement is not seen as a problem and isn't the reason they are not EU members. That is why we now have the least advantageous trading relationship with EU countries of any country in Europe.
That is doing serious damage to our economy and those costs will increase over time as it cuts investment and we lose out on the dynamic benefits of trade. This is the conversation we need to have as a country. Are we willing to be permanently poorer for the sake of controlling movement of EU citizens to the UK? My view is that we aren't. It's a shame the public couldn't have been persuaded of this argument ex ante, but they are coming around to it ex post. My worry is there aren't any politicians brave enough to have this conversation, though.
Thanks @Leon and everyone else who said nice things too. I never expected it to garner such praise!
Also, tram will only be efficient if it's an off-highway scheme. On-highway tram (like Nottingham's) are no more efficient than bus. There may still be an argument for them on journey quality basis - because journey quality has a significant impact on mode choice - but for efficiency - moving large numbers of people quickly - you need dedicated infrastructure (this doesn't actually need to be rail: GM's Leigh/Salford/Manchester busway provides a journey quality and efficiency which is just as good as tram because it is largely off-highway and also because the infrastructure is engineered to provide journey quality.)
tldr: rail is only surprisingly rarely the answer; bus has a significant role.
Frit.
Who are you talking about?
Because as it stands, if we are discussing both, then it makes for some weird first glance impressions of peoples' posts.
For example:
Shona Robison is asked by Labour MSP Pauline McNeill what evidence could be presented in court to prove that someone has falsely declared they would live in the acquired gender. Robison cannot answer. #GRRBill
https://twitter.com/lnmackenzie1/status/1594987668886241283
Listening to the debate at @SP_EHRCJ committee which is considering amendments to the Gender Recognition Reform bill, it’s so clear that this is poor law making..
..It is rooted in the belief that
there is such a thing as gender identity
That gender identity is more significant in all aspects of life (and law) than a person’s sex
That a person can acquire a new legal gender identity by filling in a form..
But there is no legal definition of gender identity or living in acquired gender. Nothing. The bill is silent. The Cabinet Secretary does not have one. Nor her civil servants who drafted the bill.
@pauline4glasgow asked the question today and was met with waffle
https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/status/1594996112146206721
The Saudis are conquering the Argies like the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) conquered the Arabian peninsula.
What a goal
11:22:11 22/11/22
Witter on all you like about fom not depressing wages at the bottom end and causing strain and stress of service.
The evidence of reality says for all the stats you spout you are wrong because now we no longer have it those wages are rising.
Perhaps if the dicks who did well out of being in the EU, lord Wolffson I am looking at you... had instead of trousering all the extra economic gains passed some downwards then we wouldn't have told them where they could stick the eu.
The "villains" of the piece are
- Trans Rights Activists who champion "no debate" and try to drown out opposition and dismiss women's concerns as "not valid"
- Politicians who have drunk the kool-aid and mindlessly chant "Trans women are women" without heed to the consequences (most of whom I suspect simply have not thought it through).
- Male sex offenders who exploit "gender change" to gain access to the female prison estate - something the Scottish Government seems keen to facilitate (again, almost certainly unintentionally).
The people I feel concern for are:
- Children put on a medicalised pathway through the "affirmative care" model that will lead to a lifetime of sterility and continued medication, when an alternative diagnosis might have led to a happier, healthier outcome. England is stopping this, Scotland carrying on regardless.
- Trans adults who want to lead their lives peacefully and happily but are being "represented" by violent, misogynistic and homophobic TRAs
- Female athletes cheated out of their wins by mediocre male athletes who discover winning is much easier as a woman than as a man. While some may sincerely be Trans, they are welcome to compete among peers of their own natal sex.
It's not even clear that Brexit has had such a huge impact on net migration, which is still running at over 200k/year thanks to non-EU migration. We issued over 1mn non EU non visitor visas in the last year compared to 600k pre-Brexit.
Leaving the EU won't help working people get paid more in the long run, and people are at last realising this which is why support for it is going down.
Surely it's both or neither ?
Edit: For backchat I see.