Has anyone else noticed that the media (and pb.com) seems to be shuffling Ukraine sideways into the 'Boring and Intractable' file currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?
There seems to be less news coming out of Ukraine over the last week or so. It has been hard to find much. It seems to be a bloodbath on both sides near Bakhmut. That suits the Russians better as they are quite happy to throw mobilised soldiers in as they have more of them. Although the Ukrainian's are clearly having a tough time of it there Ihaven't heard of many missile strikes on Ukraine lately which hopefully is good news.
All the talk of MBTs in the last week is probably being driven by a realisation in the West that Ukraine needs these weapons to push Russia back.
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
That's all fine, but how do you define sex? - Natal sex? - Based on presence of sex organs? - Based on receipt (or not) of x-sex hormones?
There are possible arguments for all of those, depending on the situation. Natal sex tends to imply physical strength and size, for example (although not universally, of course, and depending to some extent on the age of other interventions). Presence of a penis is of course relevant to some sexual safeguarding, but a natal male in long term receipt of x-sex hormones may be unable to have an erection. All shades of grey, as I think you appreciate.
🔵 The Health Secretary said he does not use private healthcare services and only receives treatment on the NHS in comments which are likely to reignite questions over Rishi Sunak's own arrangements.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Seems an interesting and important story from any angle.
Try again
ETA and is your concern for trans people as patronising as that sounds? Ooh look at this cool thing x has done despite being trans? Why the implied "despite?"
Is it important? Why is important to the degree it leads some people (and posters...) to think it is the most vital thing on Earth?
And there is no implied or explicit 'despite' in my post.
I do not intend to be patronising. My position is fairly simple: let people live how they want to live, as long as they don't hurt others in the process. It's of no real interest to me if you, or anyone else, is straight. Or gay. Or bi. Or is into bondage. Or is a furry. If someone is not a threat, leave them be.
And all this fuss over toilets *does* hurt trans people, and if taken the way some want it to go, would make it impossible for people to transition. Which I fear is what some people want.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
There are undoubtedly valid concerns about trans issues: I don't see my position as being particularly 'extreme' in this. The problem is when people spam *only* negativity .
When have I ever posted an article like either of those you linked? Surely that’s what an “anti-trans” person would do?
Being concerned about the rights and safeguarding of women and children is not “anti-trans”. Why do you think Stonewall et al demand “no debate”?
Has anyone else noticed that the media (and pb.com) seems to be shuffling Ukraine sideways into the 'Boring and Intractable' file currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?
Yep, a bit. I was surprised that there was zero discussion of the BBC programme Ukraine: The People's Fight last week, which had its faults but was v. interesting as these things tend to be. Not the least interesting thing was that a volunteer army may have similar problems with discipline and following orders with its men as it does with the Internationals.
The old saw about war being long periods of tedium interspersed occasionally with short bursts of pant-shitting, adrenaline-filled action may also be taking its toll on the couch commandos.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I do the trip from the Lincolnshire to Aberdeen regularly. Train is by far the most convenient, flying by far the least. The last couple of years I have driven because I need to be able to drive between offices and sites up in Aberdeenshire. But any time I don't have to do that it is the train every time. Driving to Aberdeen these days is a fecking nightmare. It can, in ideal conditions, be a 7 hour journey. It has not been less than 10 hours on any trip in the last year.
That makes sense from Lincolnshire, if you were flying you'd probably have to go from Birmingham? From what I recall once you go north of Edinburgh the train starts to win over driving because the roads aren't as good. We could fly back to Southampton (and we'd pass there in the car or on the train) so it's more plausible.
Google Maps says between 6:20 and 8 hours for London to Edinburgh and 7:50 to 10:20 from Edinburgh to home. We'll see!
If you are going up the East side of the country then picking your route north from Newcastle is key. The old A1 up past Berwick is interminable. The A68 via Otterburn and the A697 via Coldstream are much more pleasant drives but you do run the risk of being caught behind tractors or lorries a lot more.
If I am going to Aberdeen or anywhere north of the Central Valley I go up the A1 as far as Scotch Corner and then over the A66 and up the west side M6/M74. It is considerably longer in distance but a lot quicker most of the time. Probably not practical for going to Edinburgh.
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
No. My mum and aunt are both 90 though and live independently with not a hint of dementia, no depression, lots of grandchildren etc, and are having a pretty shit time just by virtue of being that old. And that is absolutely as good as it gets.
Sorry to hear that.
My gran on my mothers side got past 90. While living in somewhat sheltered accommodation (flat with services and frequent checks), she was mobile, independent and alert.
Right up until they found her, sitting dressed to go out, with her tea getting cold.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
That's all fine, but how do you define sex? - Natal sex? - Based on presence of sex organs? - Based on receipt (or not) of x-sex hormones?
There are possible arguments for all of those, depending on the situation. Natal sex tends to imply physical strength and size, for example (although not universally, of course and depending to some extent on the age of other interventions). Presence of a penis is of course relevant to some sexual safeguarding, but a natal male in long term receipt of x-sex hormones may be unable to have an erection. All shades of grey, as I think you appreciate.
If you're in the position of requiring safeguarding then you should be in a position to think through what matters to you and what the relevant concerns are that require safeguarding from.
If eg a rape crisis centre is female-only, then having a no person with a penis policy might make sense for safeguarding reasons. Whether someone can or can not maintain an erection isn't necessarily the concern. A separate crisis centre may not be female-only so may not have the same safeguarding priorities.
Similarly for sport, if someone has ever had male testosterone via natural puberty then they might never be able to fairly compete in female sport since having had male testosterone leads to physical changes that even a course of hormone treatment including removal of the penis does not reverse.
All or nothing doesn't work, people need to think through carefully what matters and come up with whatever safeguarding policies work best to ensure safety, fairness etc concerns are best met.
Personally I think we should treat all people with kindness and respect, if somebody wants to be called something else or identify as a woman, basic manners would dictate how we respond. It really seems no different to getting somebody's name right.
If they don't impinge on anyone else - which let's be honest, they don't in 99.999% of cases - then I really don't see what the issue is.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Your own words were: "I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children."
Does this amount to nothing more than virtue signalling with you setting yourself up as a self-appointed judge of which luxuries are morally acceptable for other people?
Only if you consider all moral judgements to be virtue signalling (I assume you are an atheist), or alternatively if you think that everything that is wrong should be illegal. Anyone who has an opinion on right or wrong behaviour is surely a self-appointed judge in your terminology?
Do you think that people who travel from other countries in order to get treatment on the NHS because they see it as better are morally wrong?
I don't have a problem with the NHS doing a bit to help people who have no access to good healthcare at home, eg people with rare conditions who can't be treated in their own countries, but the NHS's main job should be to provide healthcare to British residents. Do you have any opinions on moral questions, or are you amoral?
I do have opinions but what I find interesting is the underlying identity politics, because your view comes down to regarding it as morally offensive for some people to have access to certain treatments simply because of who they are: "You are British and you must have a British standard of care like every other British person! No fancy American or Japanese technology for you! Who do you think you are?"
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
So you can use your money to buy expensive holidays abroad or Michelin starred meals or 5 star hotels or shop at M & S or drive a Mercedes others can't but apparently not buy your children an excellent education? Absurd.
What is needed is more choice in state education with more free schools, grammars and academies not attacking private schools
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.
There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.
All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.
So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
Shouting “YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS” always results in lots of questions.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
Here's the thing: I do not give a fuck what other people call themselves or wear or do with their genitals except in the case of the very tiny subset of humanity I hope to persuade to interact with me at a primary genital level. I therefore don't give a fuck about the class of trans people any more than I give a fuck about the class of gay or straight people, except in all cases to wish them well and hope they live lives free of discrimination. josias seems to be a trans hobbyist. It's like cars; Dura Ace loves them, I regard them with sullen indifference rising to active dislike and suspicion of the example I happen to own. Dura Ace does not complain about a paucity of feelgood car stories in the press.
If Josias moved to Victoria, and if his ten year old child said casually that it thought it might be trans, and if Josias said Are you sure about that? We need to think carefully about this one, he could go to prison for ten years. Does he think that is not true? It is. Does he think it is a sane state of affairs? Does he not think that people like him polishing their woke credentials by detecting anti transness in any commentary on the situation, are in large part responsible for this, frankly, fascist insanity?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
Wading in because I normally agree with you & onlylivingboy but here I differ... I see healthcare as a more essential right than education. I am less tolerant of inequities in healthcare.
For education - I want everyone to get a pretty high standard level of provision, but beyond that I'm okay with there being some inequality based on ability, desire to learn, prioritization of parents etc.
16 or 18 years cut-off seems reasonable to me as the state having set you up okay. And parents deciding to hire a tutor or teach their own children to read is reasonable to me, even though I am sure it is unfair and introduces inequality. Even private schools are fine, although they should lose tax privileges.
For health - I want everyone to get access to the best. I know there are cost limitations at a certain point, but I really hate hate hate the idea that someone is wealthy enough to get cancer drugs to prolong their life and someone else isn't.
On schools that's not such a big difference. Hardly any at all in fact. My ideal is all kids go to a good and similar quality state school where they will perform differently due to all sorts of things, eg parenting, aptitude, diligence etc.
On Health I agree with you but I don't feel as strongly about it because there isn't imo the same cascading impact on inequality. But, yes, the notion of really good healthcare for all, regardless of ability to pay, is not something I think we should give up on, despite the cost challenge.
It won't happen but I'd like to see this choice put honestly to the electorate. Should we tax enough to properly fund welfare and universal public services or should we scale back what is provided collectively and allow private means to dictate things?
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I do the trip from the Lincolnshire to Aberdeen regularly. Train is by far the most convenient, flying by far the least. The last couple of years I have driven because I need to be able to drive between offices and sites up in Aberdeenshire. But any time I don't have to do that it is the train every time. Driving to Aberdeen these days is a fecking nightmare. It can, in ideal conditions, be a 7 hour journey. It has not been less than 10 hours on any trip in the last year.
That makes sense from Lincolnshire, if you were flying you'd probably have to go from Birmingham? From what I recall once you go north of Edinburgh the train starts to win over driving because the roads aren't as good. We could fly back to Southampton (and we'd pass there in the car or on the train) so it's more plausible.
Google Maps says between 6:20 and 8 hours for London to Edinburgh and 7:50 to 10:20 from Edinburgh to home. We'll see!
If you are going up the East side of the country then picking your route north from Newcastle is key. The old A1 up past Berwick is interminable. The A68 via Otterburn and the A697 via Coldstream are much more pleasant drives but you do run the risk of being caught behind tractors or lorries a lot more.
If I am going to Aberdeen or anywhere north of the Central Valley I go up the A1 as far as Scotch Corner and then over the A66 and up the west side M6/M74. It is considerably longer in distance but a lot quicker most of the time. Probably not practical for going to Edinburgh.
I do this run every couple of months. I like the A68 - you can get a shift on and get a long way north before the A66 route gets you as far north as Penrith. A1 is slow thanks to so many trucks.
It is crazy though that there isn't even a dual carriageway option. When the A1(not-M-honest) was being built past Dunbar there was a conversation between English and Scottish authorities about dualling the lot. Scotland was prepared to go as far as Berwick if England would do their side, was told no, so we have this long gap.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I do the trip from the Lincolnshire to Aberdeen regularly. Train is by far the most convenient, flying by far the least. The last couple of years I have driven because I need to be able to drive between offices and sites up in Aberdeenshire. But any time I don't have to do that it is the train every time. Driving to Aberdeen these days is a fecking nightmare. It can, in ideal conditions, be a 7 hour journey. It has not been less than 10 hours on any trip in the last year.
That makes sense from Lincolnshire, if you were flying you'd probably have to go from Birmingham? From what I recall once you go north of Edinburgh the train starts to win over driving because the roads aren't as good. We could fly back to Southampton (and we'd pass there in the car or on the train) so it's more plausible.
Google Maps says between 6:20 and 8 hours for London to Edinburgh and 7:50 to 10:20 from Edinburgh to home. We'll see!
If you are going up the East side of the country then picking your route north from Newcastle is key. The old A1 up past Berwick is interminable. The A68 via Otterburn and the A697 via Coldstream are much more pleasant drives but you do run the risk of being caught behind tractors or lorries a lot more.
If I am going to Aberdeen or anywhere north of the Central Valley I go up the A1 as far as Scotch Corner and then over the A66 and up the west side M6/M74. It is considerably longer in distance but a lot quicker most of the time. Probably not practical for going to Edinburgh.
I'll be starting from a hotel near Heathrow - leaving right now, Google Maps has the M40/M6/M74 and M1/A1 routes the same in terms of time and the western version only a few miles longer. The trouble on a journey that's so long that has options beginning so early is that you can't make an informed decision on which is going to be better. Unless there's something really major I'll probably go up the east side and make a decision further north on which way to complete the journey - mostly because coming back it will definitely be the western route.
Here's the thing: I do not give a fuck what other people call themselves or wear or do with their genitals except in the case of the very tiny subset of humanity I hope to persuade to interact with me at a primary genital level. I therefore don't give a fuck about the class of trans people any more than I give a fuck about the class of gay or straight people, except in all cases to wish them well and hope they live lives free of discrimination. josias seems to be a trans hobbyist. It's like cars; Dura Ace loves them, I regard them with sullen indifference rising to active dislike and suspicion of the example I happen to own. Dura Ace does not complain about a paucity of feelgood car stories in the press.
If Josias moved to Victoria, and if his ten year old child said casually that it thought it might be trans, and if Josias said Are you sure about that? We need to think carefully about this one, he could go to prison for ten years. Does he think that is not true? It is. Does he think it is a sane state of affairs? Does he not think that people like him polishing their woke credentials by detecting anti transness in any commentary on the situation, are in large part responsible for this, frankly, fascist insanity?
Spot on. I work with a trans person, they're lovely, if somebody misgenders them they're perfectly kind about it, no different to somebody getting my name wrong. They don't impact on my life, I don't impact on theirs. We produce good work together.
Why is this issue so complicated? Do not understand
Has anyone else noticed that the media (and pb.com) seems to be shuffling Ukraine sideways into the 'Boring and Intractable' file currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?
That's one interpretation.
On the other hand there's a big NATO meeting at Ramstein due this month. The west has recently agreed to supply some rather better armoured kit (Marders, Bradleys and the AMX10) than previously, and possibly now tanks, too.
If the situation hasn't changed by March, then you might have a point. A few weeks without significant territorial changes doesn't yet mean much.
It would be interesting to compare warming times - which would need some data on Soviet missile warning radar of the time, but I would suspect that a Polaris sub launching in the far North would be hitting Moscow with a lot less warning than a Jupiter from Turkey.
The biggest danger with the Jupiters was that they were so exposed - a very tempting preemptive target. So they increased the risk of a war starting.
Polaris and Minuteman really created the missile gap - in reverse. Which is why the Russians started talking about arms limitation. At one point there was talk for deploying 10,000 Minuteman missiles. As Phase 1….
Certainly in the early 60s the Soviets had very limited early warning radar. It wasn't until the 1970s that they had an extensive system of radar and ABM. So Jupiter going would have been a win, and when the Soviets did start building early warning systems they were at first tasked with detecting SLBMs from the Atlantic, North Sea, and Norwegian Sea.
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
What do you want done that it not being done ? There are numerous studies in numerous countries looking at the long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
@turbotubbs' point was that a lot of the concerns were being driven by one person who has an agenda. The implication was that, if you have any questions about the health side effects of vaccines, you obviously have an anti-vac agenda and / or are a nut. That is not a healthy attitude.
No, thats not true. It is fine to have concerns about the side effects of vaccines. Thats why we have clinical trials, and committees of experts who say yes or no to use, and for whom. All the vaccines went through all the stages of clinical trials that any other medicine has too. In the emergency trials were sped up, not by not doing them, but by running in parallel and by meeting not months after getting data, but hours and days.
We also have the fact that billions of doses have been administered.
Bad faith actors and misguided people are distorting the truth about health issues in a post covid world. One of the biggest sequelae of covid is damage to the heart. So its hardly surprising that we are seeing an increase in heart issues, given that almost everyone has been exposed to covid.
By all means have concerns about vaccines. But then do some research and not on twitter, facebook etc. Look over the published data.
Asseem Malhotra is a weird guy who is distorting facts and evidence for his own reasons. Someone suggested his father died early in covid and that he is using his guilt over that to drive his campaign. Fine - if he believes there are dangers he should make his case with FACTS. Currently he is not. His schtick seems to be to find any other medics who raise concerns on twitter and trumpet this as proof. Yet there are 100s of 1000s of medics in the world - some probably believe pineapple works as a pizza topping, and is best eating while listening to Radiohead.
As a scientist I would always say to ask questions. But always try to ask the right questions.
Cheers for that answer. I'm not a scientist, I have a humanities background so I grasp the general outlines but not the details.
My concerns come not so much from looking at Twitter, Facebook et al - it's clear there are many nut jobs out there. It is more based on past examples and / or what I see in terms of behaviour from my professional experience:
1. The vaccine firms, and managements involved, have legal immunity from damages related to the vaccines. Especially in a situation where there are very significant profits to be made in a short amount of time and / or lead to a dramatic increase in share prices (and managements' option), that is always a red flag. It doesn't mean corners are cut but it does mean the incentives are skewed massively for the parties involved.
2. My understanding is the mRNA technology under normal circumstances would have taken years to be approved but was sped up for Covid (which you mention). Again, while there are safeguards, in a situation where time is sensitive, things get overlooked (wars are great examples of this).
3. History will tell you the scientific community tends to take a rather blase view when it comes to side-effects of medicines, putting it down as the price of progress. There have been plenty of examples where scientists have been somewhat slow to examine the side-effects of a wonder drug and that, in some cases, it has taken public pressure to force an investigation.
4. As you say, "its hardly surprising that we are seeing an increase in heart issues, given that almost everyone has been exposed to covid." The flip side of that argument though is that almost everyone has also had the vaccine. So what is causing the issues - the vaccine or covid? Can you separate out the causation?
5. You can't have cranks asking the questions but you have to make sure those who do ask the questions do not have conflicts of interest. An example from my work - Facebook and Google pushed their attribution models onto advertisers, telling them they were scientific, neutral and backed by their own tests. Now they admit they may not work. I have no doubt they were sincere but there was a clear conflict of interest. On Covid specifically, Peter Daszak is a clear expert. Would I trust him when it comes to the origins of Covid? Absolutely not.
We have one close friend who caught myocarditis post-receiving the vaccine and another who had a stroke at 51 after her shot. Could these be non-vaccine related? Absolutely. I have had mine and have had no problems. But I do find this tendency to shout 'crank!' - and I apologise for suggesting you did - when anyone raises questions as worrying.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
Here's the thing: I do not give a fuck what other people call themselves or wear or do with their genitals except in the case of the very tiny subset of humanity I hope to persuade to interact with me at a primary genital level. I therefore don't give a fuck about the class of trans people any more than I give a fuck about the class of gay or straight people, except in all cases to wish them well and hope they live lives free of discrimination. josias seems to be a trans hobbyist. It's like cars; Dura Ace loves them, I regard them with sullen indifference rising to active dislike and suspicion of the example I happen to own. Dura Ace does not complain about a paucity of feelgood car stories in the press.
If Josias moved to Victoria, and if his ten year old child said casually that it thought it might be trans, and if Josias said Are you sure about that? We need to think carefully about this one, he could go to prison for ten years. Does he think that is not true? It is. Does he think it is a sane state of affairs? Does he not think that people like him polishing their woke credentials by detecting anti transness in any commentary on the situation, are in large part responsible for this, frankly, fascist insanity?
If my son did say he was trans, we would talk about it. If I locked him up in his room to prevent him going trans, then I'd expect to get locked up.
As a matter of interest, where did you get the 'locked up for ten years' for talking to a kid about his sexuality and gender?
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
So you can use your money to buy expensive holidays abroad or Michelin starred meals or 5 star hotels or shop at M & S or drive a Mercedes others can't but apparently not buy your children an excellent education? Absurd.
What is needed is more choice in state education with more free schools, grammars and academies not attacking private schools
Every kid should get an excellent education, not just rich kids.
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
They're all really expensive compared to last year. the headline 16% rise in grocery prices masks the huge rises in some staples like milk and bread and meat. Price inflation continues to run amok, with another flurry of cross the board price rises already landing on buyer desks.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
I've never understood the appeal of the super-large supermarket. One of the main reasons I shop at Aldi is that it has just 4 aisles yet contains 99% of what I would normally need. Last night I had very limited time yet managed to be in and out with a full weekly shop in less than 30 minutes. Would have been 5 minutes less if they introduced self-scan (not that I think they ever will). Probably would have taken at least 45 minutes, if not more, if I'd had to push the trolley up and down all the aisles at the local super-large Tesco or Sainsburys.
For Aldi running these smaller supermarkets must save them a packet compared to those running the big supermarkets.
The German discounters run on an entirely different model. A finite number of products, which cuts cost by being simpler to buy / transport / merchandise. No in-store counters - the Lidl bakery is modular, heating part-made products rather than making it on-site. No specialisms in the staff - everyone does everything. You will see the store manager jump on tills for 10 minutes to clear a queue then go back onto pulling products out the back.
All of which means they operate on significantly lower front margins (direct profit selling a product) than the other supermarket chains. And thanks to significantly lower operating costs have higher bottom line profits. And thanks to being long term privately owned they don't give a rat fuck about quarterly profit reports and just plan long term for their business to succeed.
I know I have mentioned it before, but the Aldi HQ in Atherstone is an example of how they think. Massive UK growth meant they needed to expand their office space. So they built a large extension to the office block, using the exact same bricks in the exact same pattern as the original part built 20 years prior...
Aldis in Britain are Aldi Süd, whereas in France they are Aldi Nord.
Here's the thing: I do not give a fuck what other people call themselves or wear or do with their genitals except in the case of the very tiny subset of humanity I hope to persuade to interact with me at a primary genital level. I therefore don't give a fuck about the class of trans people any more than I give a fuck about the class of gay or straight people, except in all cases to wish them well and hope they live lives free of discrimination. josias seems to be a trans hobbyist. It's like cars; Dura Ace loves them, I regard them with sullen indifference rising to active dislike and suspicion of the example I happen to own. Dura Ace does not complain about a paucity of feelgood car stories in the press.
If Josias moved to Victoria, and if his ten year old child said casually that it thought it might be trans, and if Josias said Are you sure about that? We need to think carefully about this one, he could go to prison for ten years. Does he think that is not true? It is. Does he think it is a sane state of affairs? Does he not think that people like him polishing their woke credentials by detecting anti transness in any commentary on the situation, are in large part responsible for this, frankly, fascist insanity?
Spot on. I work with a trans person, they're lovely, if somebody misgenders them they're perfectly kind about it, no different to somebody getting my name wrong. They don't impact on my life, I don't impact on theirs. We produce good work together.
Why is this issue so complicated? Do not understand
The trans activists have not exactly done a good job of giving the impression that trans people are capable of being "perfectly kind" about misgendering...
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
No. My mum and aunt are both 90 though and live independently with not a hint of dementia, no depression, lots of grandchildren etc, and are having a pretty shit time just by virtue of being that old. And that is absolutely as good as it gets.
Sorry to hear that.
My gran on my mothers side got past 90. While living in somewhat sheltered accommodation (flat with services and frequent checks), she was mobile, independent and alert.
Right up until they found her, sitting dressed to go out, with her tea getting cold.
But this is my point. They are as independent and alert af, and mobile without aids, but a room-to-room move is now a 5 minute op minimum. And after lives of having jobs and travelling/walking dogs/riding horses, all that goes and they are reduced to watching the racing on telly.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Your own words were: "I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children."
Does this amount to nothing more than virtue signalling with you setting yourself up as a self-appointed judge of which luxuries are morally acceptable for other people?
Only if you consider all moral judgements to be virtue signalling (I assume you are an atheist), or alternatively if you think that everything that is wrong should be illegal. Anyone who has an opinion on right or wrong behaviour is surely a self-appointed judge in your terminology?
Do you think that people who travel from other countries in order to get treatment on the NHS because they see it as better are morally wrong?
I don't have a problem with the NHS doing a bit to help people who have no access to good healthcare at home, eg people with rare conditions who can't be treated in their own countries, but the NHS's main job should be to provide healthcare to British residents. Do you have any opinions on moral questions, or are you amoral?
I do have opinions but what I find interesting is the underlying identity politics, because your view comes down to regarding it as morally offensive for some people to have access to certain treatments simply because of who they are: "You are British and you must have a British standard of care like every other British person! No fancy American or Japanese technology for you! Who do you think you are?"
I've read your comment three times and I still don't understand what you're getting at, sorry.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Yes. Why should there not be an open market in body parts?
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
There are undoubtedly valid concerns about trans issues: I don't see my position as being particularly 'extreme' in this. The problem is when people spam *only* negativity .
When have I ever posted an article like either of those you linked? Surely that’s what an “anti-trans” person would do?
Being concerned about the rights and safeguarding of women and children is not “anti-trans”. Why do you think Stonewall et al demand “no debate”?
Where's your concern for trans people? You need to be concerned about the rights of *all* people. Even trans people.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
You'd end up paying an arm and a leg in that market.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
Trans people aren't a threat. People abusing laws to help trans people to allow them to abuse women, are a threat. People abusing laws to help trans people to allow them to compete against naturally-born-women with an unfair advantage are a threat to women's sport. There are no easy answers.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
Where do you sit (ahem) on the public toilets issue? Should trans people be allowed to use women's toilets?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
So you can use your money to buy expensive holidays abroad or Michelin starred meals or 5 star hotels or shop at M & S or drive a Mercedes others can't but apparently not buy your children an excellent education? Absurd.
What is needed is more choice in state education with more free schools, grammars and academies not attacking private schools
You only get choice if the supply of school places significantly outstrips demand. Then everyone can "choose" a high-performing school, and the poor schools stand empty.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I do the trip from the Lincolnshire to Aberdeen regularly. Train is by far the most convenient, flying by far the least. The last couple of years I have driven because I need to be able to drive between offices and sites up in Aberdeenshire. But any time I don't have to do that it is the train every time. Driving to Aberdeen these days is a fecking nightmare. It can, in ideal conditions, be a 7 hour journey. It has not been less than 10 hours on any trip in the last year.
That makes sense from Lincolnshire, if you were flying you'd probably have to go from Birmingham? From what I recall once you go north of Edinburgh the train starts to win over driving because the roads aren't as good. We could fly back to Southampton (and we'd pass there in the car or on the train) so it's more plausible.
Google Maps says between 6:20 and 8 hours for London to Edinburgh and 7:50 to 10:20 from Edinburgh to home. We'll see!
If you are going up the East side of the country then picking your route north from Newcastle is key. The old A1 up past Berwick is interminable. The A68 via Otterburn and the A697 via Coldstream are much more pleasant drives but you do run the risk of being caught behind tractors or lorries a lot more.
If I am going to Aberdeen or anywhere north of the Central Valley I go up the A1 as far as Scotch Corner and then over the A66 and up the west side M6/M74. It is considerably longer in distance but a lot quicker most of the time. Probably not practical for going to Edinburgh.
I'll be starting from a hotel near Heathrow - leaving right now, Google Maps has the M40/M6/M74 and M1/A1 routes the same in terms of time and the western version only a few miles longer. The trouble on a journey that's so long that has options beginning so early is that you can't make an informed decision on which is going to be better. Unless there's something really major I'll probably go up the east side and make a decision further north on which way to complete the journey - mostly because coming back it will definitely be the western route.
I am familiar with both East and West journeys from Heathrow to Aberdeen and would not hesitate to travel by west route using the M40/M42/M6 toll/M6/ M74/A9 to Perth then onwards to Aberdeen
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
There are undoubtedly valid concerns about trans issues: I don't see my position as being particularly 'extreme' in this. The problem is when people spam *only* negativity .
When have I ever posted an article like either of those you linked? Surely that’s what an “anti-trans” person would do?
Being concerned about the rights and safeguarding of women and children is not “anti-trans”. Why do you think Stonewall et al demand “no debate”?
Where's your concern for trans people? You need to be concerned about the rights of *all* people. Even trans people.
That's a fallacious argument. You can be concerned with the rights of all people, while having a particular concern for some.
Cyclefree has a particular concern for the rights of women - there's nothing wrong with that. You have a particular concern for the rights of trans people - there's nothing wrong with that.
Saying "be concerned with all" doesn't mean you can't be especially concerned with some. That's like saying to someone saying "black lives matter" that you should instead be saying "all lives matter", or to someone saying "justice for the 96 [now 97]" that they should instead be saying justice for all.
There is nothing wrong with having extra concern for people who are seriously wronged in the current system, whether that be women, black people, trans, children, dead football fans or anyone else.
Here's the thing: I do not give a fuck what other people call themselves or wear or do with their genitals except in the case of the very tiny subset of humanity I hope to persuade to interact with me at a primary genital level. I therefore don't give a fuck about the class of trans people any more than I give a fuck about the class of gay or straight people, except in all cases to wish them well and hope they live lives free of discrimination. josias seems to be a trans hobbyist. It's like cars; Dura Ace loves them, I regard them with sullen indifference rising to active dislike and suspicion of the example I happen to own. Dura Ace does not complain about a paucity of feelgood car stories in the press.
If Josias moved to Victoria, and if his ten year old child said casually that it thought it might be trans, and if Josias said Are you sure about that? We need to think carefully about this one, he could go to prison for ten years. Does he think that is not true? It is. Does he think it is a sane state of affairs? Does he not think that people like him polishing their woke credentials by detecting anti transness in any commentary on the situation, are in large part responsible for this, frankly, fascist insanity?
Spot on. I work with a trans person, they're lovely, if somebody misgenders them they're perfectly kind about it, no different to somebody getting my name wrong. They don't impact on my life, I don't impact on theirs. We produce good work together.
Why is this issue so complicated? Do not understand
Because there are some bad actors (a tiny percentage). Such as men who claim, suddenly, to be trans when sent to prison, in order to be among women rather than men.
And there are some on the trans debate, like so many other debates, who wish to be 'wokier than you' and end up pushing everything to extremes.
Most people are nice. Most people are kind. Most just want to get on with living nice lives. But there are monsters in the real world, and sometimes people need to make a stand.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
Here's the thing: I do not give a fuck what other people call themselves or wear or do with their genitals except in the case of the very tiny subset of humanity I hope to persuade to interact with me at a primary genital level. I therefore don't give a fuck about the class of trans people any more than I give a fuck about the class of gay or straight people, except in all cases to wish them well and hope they live lives free of discrimination. josias seems to be a trans hobbyist. It's like cars; Dura Ace loves them, I regard them with sullen indifference rising to active dislike and suspicion of the example I happen to own. Dura Ace does not complain about a paucity of feelgood car stories in the press.
If Josias moved to Victoria, and if his ten year old child said casually that it thought it might be trans, and if Josias said Are you sure about that? We need to think carefully about this one, he could go to prison for ten years. Does he think that is not true? It is. Does he think it is a sane state of affairs? Does he not think that people like him polishing their woke credentials by detecting anti transness in any commentary on the situation, are in large part responsible for this, frankly, fascist insanity?
If my son did say he was trans, we would talk about it. If I locked him up in his room to prevent him going trans, then I'd expect to get locked up.
As a matter of interest, where did you get the 'locked up for ten years' for talking to a kid about his sexuality and gender?
World class misdirection there, what on earth does "If I locked him up in his room to prevent him going trans" have to do with it? I don't understand that at all. False imprisonment has aleays been an offence, and why do you specify "to prevent him" when "to make him" is equally [ir]relevant?
"we would talk about it" is weasel words. you wouldn't, in Victoria, have a pros and cons conversation about it.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
Wading in because I normally agree with you & onlylivingboy but here I differ... I see healthcare as a more essential right than education. I am less tolerant of inequities in healthcare.
For education - I want everyone to get a pretty high standard level of provision, but beyond that I'm okay with there being some inequality based on ability, desire to learn, prioritization of parents etc.
16 or 18 years cut-off seems reasonable to me as the state having set you up okay. And parents deciding to hire a tutor or teach their own children to read is reasonable to me, even though I am sure it is unfair and introduces inequality. Even private schools are fine, although they should lose tax privileges.
For health - I want everyone to get access to the best. I know there are cost limitations at a certain point, but I really hate hate hate the idea that someone is wealthy enough to get cancer drugs to prolong their life and someone else isn't.
Generally agree with you. But is it a given that if you prevented the wealthy buying cancer drugs privately it would make them any more available on the NHS? That is a genuine question not an assertion. I don't know.
If your position is that if they can only be afforded by a small number of people then no one should be allowed to have them then I would disagree with you (I am not saying that is your position by the way). If you are saying that preventing private purchase would make them available for everyone who needed them then I agree with you.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
There are undoubtedly valid concerns about trans issues: I don't see my position as being particularly 'extreme' in this. The problem is when people spam *only* negativity .
When have I ever posted an article like either of those you linked? Surely that’s what an “anti-trans” person would do?
Being concerned about the rights and safeguarding of women and children is not “anti-trans”. Why do you think Stonewall et al demand “no debate”?
Where's your concern for trans people? You need to be concerned about the rights of *all* people. Even trans people.
It’s trans peoples rights that are being increased in ways that could allow bad actors to abuse them to impact the safeguarding of women and children. Where’s your concern for women and children?
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
Where do you sit (ahem) on the public toilets issue? Should trans people be allowed to use women's toilets?
I don't especially care, to be honest. I mean I take my daughters to the male toilets when I'm out with them, so its not as if toilets are 100% one sex or another already.
I think disabled toilets [which are typically single cubicle/gender-neutral] should be easier to access (I don't like places that lock the disabled toilet and ask people to ask for a key for it) and I think for someone eg physically male in female clothes it may make sense to use the disabled toilets rather than either male or female. But its not a major safeguarding issue for me personally, act with common sense is my view.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
Agreed with your conclusion but not the way you phrase it. Dysphoric males (XY) who think they're "women" should not be allowed to use women's toilets. But they have just as much right to be safeguarded against physical attack as women or normal males.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
So you can use your money to buy expensive holidays abroad or Michelin starred meals or 5 star hotels or shop at M & S or drive a Mercedes others can't but apparently not buy your children an excellent education? Absurd.
What is needed is more choice in state education with more free schools, grammars and academies not attacking private schools
Without necessarily disagreeing with some of what you have said I think you miss an important point in comparing a Michelin Star meal, etc with education. They are very different.
I would argue it is a human right for every child regardless of wealth, background, etc to have an equal opportunity of an excellent education and health care.
I don't believe it is a human right to have an expensive holiday, a Michelin star meal, 5 star hotel, shop at M&S or drive a Mercedes.
So they are very different and consequently can not be compared.
It's like oil, and Palestine. Being a twat about it achieves nothing but to define it as One of those things people are twats about. And 1984 type legislation gets passed because it's IN A GOOD CAUSE.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
That's a good post. I've been with BUBA for a long time. My company decided that as I was responsible for a large crew and couldn't afford to take time off for illness I should have private medical insurance. Similarly for work I am contracted to travel first or club the theory being that as soon as I get off the plane I have to be ready to work. If I take a UK crew with me they also travel club for the same reason.
Better that those distinctions didn't exist but I reckon they're just about fair enough. If Rishi had said that he has private medical insurance for reasons of work I wouldn't argue. Better we all had the same but as our problems are different our solutions sometimes have to be as well.
By the same token I consider SUVs anti social and would never have one but if someone had to navigate a farm in the Yorkshire Dales I'd be more forgiving.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
Wading in because I normally agree with you & onlylivingboy but here I differ... I see healthcare as a more essential right than education. I am less tolerant of inequities in healthcare.
For education - I want everyone to get a pretty high standard level of provision, but beyond that I'm okay with there being some inequality based on ability, desire to learn, prioritization of parents etc.
16 or 18 years cut-off seems reasonable to me as the state having set you up okay. And parents deciding to hire a tutor or teach their own children to read is reasonable to me, even though I am sure it is unfair and introduces inequality. Even private schools are fine, although they should lose tax privileges.
For health - I want everyone to get access to the best. I know there are cost limitations at a certain point, but I really hate hate hate the idea that someone is wealthy enough to get cancer drugs to prolong their life and someone else isn't.
Generally agree with you. But is it a given that if you prevented the wealthy buying cancer drugs privately it would make them any more available on the NHS? That is a genuine question not an assertion. I don't know.
If your position is that if they can only be afforded by a small number of people then no one should be allowed to have them then I would disagree with you (I am not saying that is your position by the way). If you are saying that preventing private purchase would make them available for everyone who needed them then I agree with you.
Liked both posts. Good to see a sensible discussion on these subjects and it is nice to see people not knowing the answer to stuff and also seeing that life is somewhat more complicated than a simple ideological approach.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Careful! The Epping Tories may see this as a way to allow locals to access the housing market without waiting for the inheritance.....
It's like oil, and Palestine. Being a twat about it achieves nothing but to define it as One of those things people are twats about. And 1984 type legislation gets passed because it's IN A GOOD CAUSE.
"You talk about Big Brother. Are you one of those QAnon types?"
Cf. "Who do you think you are, thinking for yourself like that?"
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
What do you want done that it not being done ? There are numerous studies in numerous countries looking at the long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
@turbotubbs' point was that a lot of the concerns were being driven by one person who has an agenda. The implication was that, if you have any questions about the health side effects of vaccines, you obviously have an anti-vac agenda and / or are a nut. That is not a healthy attitude.
No, thats not true. It is fine to have concerns about the side effects of vaccines. Thats why we have clinical trials, and committees of experts who say yes or no to use, and for whom. All the vaccines went through all the stages of clinical trials that any other medicine has too. In the emergency trials were sped up, not by not doing them, but by running in parallel and by meeting not months after getting data, but hours and days.
We also have the fact that billions of doses have been administered.
Bad faith actors and misguided people are distorting the truth about health issues in a post covid world. One of the biggest sequelae of covid is damage to the heart. So its hardly surprising that we are seeing an increase in heart issues, given that almost everyone has been exposed to covid.
By all means have concerns about vaccines. But then do some research and not on twitter, facebook etc. Look over the published data.
Asseem Malhotra is a weird guy who is distorting facts and evidence for his own reasons. Someone suggested his father died early in covid and that he is using his guilt over that to drive his campaign. Fine - if he believes there are dangers he should make his case with FACTS. Currently he is not. His schtick seems to be to find any other medics who raise concerns on twitter and trumpet this as proof. Yet there are 100s of 1000s of medics in the world - some probably believe pineapple works as a pizza topping, and is best eating while listening to Radiohead.
As a scientist I would always say to ask questions. But always try to ask the right questions.
Cheers for that answer. I'm not a scientist, I have a humanities background so I grasp the general outlines but not the details.
My concerns come not so much from looking at Twitter, Facebook et al - it's clear there are many nut jobs out there. It is more based on past examples and / or what I see in terms of behaviour from my professional experience:
1. The vaccine firms, and managements involved, have legal immunity from damages related to the vaccines. Especially in a situation where there are very significant profits to be made in a short amount of time and / or lead to a dramatic increase in share prices (and managements' option), that is always a red flag. It doesn't mean corners are cut but it does mean the incentives are skewed massively for the parties involved.
2. My understanding is the mRNA technology under normal circumstances would have taken years to be approved but was sped up for Covid (which you mention). Again, while there are safeguards, in a situation where time is sensitive, things get overlooked (wars are great examples of this).
3. History will tell you the scientific community tends to take a rather blase view when it comes to side-effects of medicines, putting it down as the price of progress. There have been plenty of examples where scientists have been somewhat slow to examine the side-effects of a wonder drug and that, in some cases, it has taken public pressure to force an investigation.
4. As you say, "its hardly surprising that we are seeing an increase in heart issues, given that almost everyone has been exposed to covid." The flip side of that argument though is that almost everyone has also had the vaccine. So what is causing the issues - the vaccine or covid? Can you separate out the causation?
5. You can't have cranks asking the questions but you have to make sure those who do ask the questions do not have conflicts of interest. An example from my work - Facebook and Google pushed their attribution models onto advertisers, telling them they were scientific, neutral and backed by their own tests. Now they admit they may not work. I have no doubt they were sincere but there was a clear conflict of interest. On Covid specifically, Peter Daszak is a clear expert. Would I trust him when it comes to the origins of Covid? Absolutely not.
We have one close friend who caught myocarditis post-receiving the vaccine and another who had a stroke at 51 after her shot. Could these be non-vaccine related? Absolutely. I have had mine and have had no problems. But I do find this tendency to shout 'crank!' - and I apologise for suggesting you did - when anyone raises questions as worrying.
1. Not aware that this is the case, but even if it is, the vaccines were all tested to exactly the same standards as other medication. They were approved by independent bodies. Now if a company withheld evidence of harm from the committee, there would be consequences that any immunity would not cover.
2. The speeding up of the testing process did not miss any steps. Rather the sequencing was changed to allow things in parallel, and meetings that would have been months away were a damn sight sooner. The risk was at this point - there is a reason generally to take time and see. As it happened the risk paid off and nothing untoward happened.
3. I think this is a partial misunderstanding of events. If you have a rare side effect, say 1 in 100,000 patients, you may not pick that up in testing of 10,000 patients. Only after approval will the effect start to show up (and this does happen). All post authorisation drugs are monitored for just this eventuality.
4. @Selebian will be able to tell you a lot more as this is more his area, but the way to see is to look at patient records for health events, and take a look at how unvaccinated ones do versus vaccinated. We have plenty of data on patients in 2020 suffering heart damage, all of them unvaccinated. Its a lot harder to find those patients now as most have had the vaccine. But not all.
5. I'm not sure what you mean by this - everyone is right to ask questions, but its important to understand the answers and to have people lying widely on twitter about statistics. Most people don't have time to dig into a study claiming a bit increase in heart deaths in athletes and discovering that Pele was included and indeed someone who died in a car crash.
One of things I love about science is that if stuff is wrong it gets found out. People try to repeat experiments and it doesn't work. I have an example from my own research - I tried to synthesize a compound from a paper, my data didn't match theirs. I checked and the 'data' they provided was fake.* I wasted a few weeks, but the crap stuff was found out. If there were a tidalwave of side effects from vaccines coming we would know by now.
There were side effects. Some people died from the AZ vaccine (although its not totally clear why, and I did see some discussion of poor vaccination technique at the time - arms being pinched etc). But people like Malhotra is being very very naughty with data and I would say abusing his position as a medic (authority) to cast doubt on vaccines with unwarranted concerns.
Fans of Succession will enjoy the ongoing family psychodrama that is the WWE and the McMahons. Vince's move to sell (but control) his company and shaft* his kids is remarkably similar to Logan Roy's in S3.
Has anyone else noticed that the media (and pb.com) seems to be shuffling Ukraine sideways into the 'Boring and Intractable' file currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?
There seems to be less news coming out of Ukraine over the last week or so. It has been hard to find much. It seems to be a bloodbath on both sides near Bakhmut. That suits the Russians better as they are quite happy to throw mobilised soldiers in as they have more of them. Although the Ukrainian's are clearly having a tough time of it there Ihaven't heard of many missile strikes on Ukraine lately which hopefully is good news.
All the talk of MBTs in the last week is probably being driven by a realisation in the West that Ukraine needs these weapons to push Russia back.
Propagandists on both sides seem to be saying, just wait until the ground freezes then we'll let rip. I reckon nobody is going anywhere particularly quickly. There is a weird stand off where neither side can deploy any mass of tactical aviation but any force build up gets spotted by drones and then blown to fuck by artillery.
I have no idea why Stupidly said he was 'considering' sending CR2. What's to consider? They either need them or they don't.
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.
There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.
All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.
So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
My point was not that there is a complete absence of articles from trans people in the press - these do exist as you rightly point out - but that CV never ever posts them. They seem to be singularly obsessed with this particular issue.
Has anyone else noticed that the media (and pb.com) seems to be shuffling Ukraine sideways into the 'Boring and Intractable' file currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?
That's one interpretation.
On the other hand there's a big NATO meeting at Ramstein due this month. The west has recently agreed to supply some rather better armoured kit (Marders, Bradleys and the AMX10) than previously, and possibly now tanks, too.
If the situation hasn't changed by March, then you might have a point. A few weeks without significant territorial changes doesn't yet mean much.
There's less *change* in the war happening at the moment.
The Russians are continuing with the campaign against infrastructure - but this is doing less and less. Wagner are still recreating WWI at Soledar - right down to the 1-1 scale models of ground taken/retaken.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
So you can use your money to buy expensive holidays abroad or Michelin starred meals or 5 star hotels or shop at M & S or drive a Mercedes others can't but apparently not buy your children an excellent education? Absurd.
What is needed is more choice in state education with more free schools, grammars and academies not attacking private schools
Without necessarily disagreeing with some of what you have said I think you miss an important point in comparing a Michelin Star meal, etc with education. They are very different.
I would argue it is a human right for every child regardless of wealth, background, etc to have an equal opportunity of an excellent education and health care.
I don't believe it is a human right to have an expensive holiday, a Michelin star meal, 5 star hotel, shop at M&S or drive a Mercedes.
So they are very different and consequently can not be compared.
Its not possible to have "equal opportunity" for education though. Where do you draw the line?
Would you make it illegal to buy or rent a home in the catchment area of good schools? Or perhaps abolish catchment areas altogether and replace with a US-style bussing system so that where you live doesn't determine what school you go to?
Would you make it illegal to get outside tutoring or support?
Would you abolish libraries to prevent some children from having extra access to books because they go a library while others don't?
Would you abolish bookstores for the above reason?
Would you admonish parents who read to their kids at night, or support them with their homework, or practice their times tables with them etc?
We should be seeking to maximise people's opportunities, without punishing or preventing those parents that value education and seek to go even further. The most important things for education can be those like reading at home that have little to do with the school anyway, and that can't be prevented and nor should it.
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.
There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.
All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.
So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
My point was not that there is a complete absence of articles from trans people in the press - these do exist as you rightly point out - but that CV never ever posts them. They seem to be singularly obsessed with this particular issue.
Even if that's the case, CV wouldn't be the only poster here who is singularly obsessed with a particular issue.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
Wading in because I normally agree with you & onlylivingboy but here I differ... I see healthcare as a more essential right than education. I am less tolerant of inequities in healthcare.
For education - I want everyone to get a pretty high standard level of provision, but beyond that I'm okay with there being some inequality based on ability, desire to learn, prioritization of parents etc.
16 or 18 years cut-off seems reasonable to me as the state having set you up okay. And parents deciding to hire a tutor or teach their own children to read is reasonable to me, even though I am sure it is unfair and introduces inequality. Even private schools are fine, although they should lose tax privileges.
For health - I want everyone to get access to the best. I know there are cost limitations at a certain point, but I really hate hate hate the idea that someone is wealthy enough to get cancer drugs to prolong their life and someone else isn't.
Generally agree with you. But is it a given that if you prevented the wealthy buying cancer drugs privately it would make them any more available on the NHS? That is a genuine question not an assertion. I don't know.
If your position is that if they can only be afforded by a small number of people then no one should be allowed to have them then I would disagree with you (I am not saying that is your position by the way). If you are saying that preventing private purchase would make them available for everyone who needed them then I agree with you.
That is an interesting question. Answer is 'in theory', I guess. For most drugs the price is in research and development, not manufacture. So having developed the drug it makes sense to sell it at any price above manufacturing cost, in the end, but is of course desired (essential on average for company survival) to sell it at a price that gives profit over all involved costs.* If you can sell it at X privately then that sets the price for NHS, to an extent.** If you could not sell it privately then you can only sell it at what the NHS will pay (or not sell it at all).***
In practice, I doubt it would make a huge amount of difference. NHS can secure big discounts on a list price anyway and will generally pay what it takes for things that are cost effective. Most of the headline 'cancer drug X not available on NHS' are due to the benefits being uncertain or not justifying the cost - drug helps a bit, but the money is far better spent elsewhere, but there is a market selling to wealthy individuals or to insurers who simply cover the costs through premiums by having access to fancy but not hugely effective** cancer drugs as a selling point.
* which is a complex calculation depending on how much you can shift for how long - will the treated condition become more or less prevalent; will a competitor come up with a better drug in two years that ends sale of yours? ** but only to an extent. The NHS (and other large customers) will generally secure supplies at a significant discount on the list price (if a list price is public). *** ignores that there are many other health providers in the world, even if private healthcare was e.g. outlawed in the UK **** gives you say an extra 6 months to 1 year reasonable quality life. Needs to cost no more than £20-£30k (at most) for NICE to see it as cost effective, but certainly something that can be sold to someone with that cash or private health insurance
ETA: MenB (wa it MenB? one of the meningitis vaccines anyway) vaccine was interesting case in point. Kills (a very few) children, so emotive. Vaccine effective but very very expensive. colleagues did the cost benefit analysis and didn't pass NICE threshold, so no rollout (simply because very few die from lack of vaccine). Public (well, press) outcry, NHS and manufacturer come to an arrangement on price that squeezes under (or at least near) cost effective (details secret). Vaccine provided. Vaccine would always have been available privately in either case.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
That's a good post. I've been with BUBA for a long time. My company decided that as I was responsible for a large crew and couldn't afford to take time off for illness I should have private medical insurance. Similarly for work I am contracted to travel first or club the theory being that as soon as I get off the plane I have to be ready to work. If I take a UK crew with me they also travel club for the same reason.
Better that those distinctions didn't exist but I reckon they're just about fair enough. If Rishi had said that he has private medical insurance for reasons of work I wouldn't argue. Better we all had the same but as our problems are different our solutions sometimes have to be as well.
By the same token I consider SUVs anti social and would never have one but if someone had to navigate a farm in the Yorkshire Dales I'd be more forgiving.
If you had to navigate a farm, anything but a 4x4 with high ground clearance would end up stuck fairly rapidly.
On the other had, round the corner from me, in West London, we have someone who owns a long wheelbase Landrover, covered in checker plate, with a snorkel and a spade bolted to it. It has fairly obviously, never been in water deeper than the tire tread.
I had to explain to my wife, when I suggested, that since we need a car, we should go one up on the plonker in question and get a 101....
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.
There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.
All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.
So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
My point was not that there is a complete absence of articles from trans people in the press - these do exist as you rightly point out - but that CV never ever posts them. They seem to be singularly obsessed with this particular issue.
You seem not to have come up with examples of the anti-trans articles in the Times and Telegraph you referred to. Or even the DM.
CV's post seemed to me to be saying, very credibly, that trans activist wazzockry is making life harder for the trans.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
People have been bludgeoned to death with hammers. Let us treat everyone who uses a hammer as a criminal and do not try telling me that only a tiny percentage of hammer users are murderers!
We need to stamp this out!!!! Public safety demands it.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
So you can use your money to buy expensive holidays abroad or Michelin starred meals or 5 star hotels or shop at M & S or drive a Mercedes others can't but apparently not buy your children an excellent education? Absurd.
What is needed is more choice in state education with more free schools, grammars and academies not attacking private schools
Without necessarily disagreeing with some of what you have said I think you miss an important point in comparing a Michelin Star meal, etc with education. They are very different.
I would argue it is a human right for every child regardless of wealth, background, etc to have an equal opportunity of an excellent education and health care.
I don't believe it is a human right to have an expensive holiday, a Michelin star meal, 5 star hotel, shop at M&S or drive a Mercedes.
So they are very different and consequently can not be compared.
Its not possible to have "equal opportunity" for education though. Where do you draw the line?
Would you make it illegal to buy or rent a home in the catchment area of good schools? Or perhaps abolish catchment areas altogether and replace with a US-style bussing system so that where you live doesn't determine what school you go to?
Would you make it illegal to get outside tutoring or support?
Would you abolish libraries to prevent some children from having extra access to books because they go a library while others don't?
Would you abolish bookstores for the above reason?
Would you admonish parents who read to their kids at night, or support them with their homework, or practice their times tables with them etc?
We should be seeking to maximise people's opportunities, without punishing or preventing those parents that value education and seek to go even further. The most important things for education can be those like reading at home that have little to do with the school anyway, and that can't be prevented and nor should it.
Locally, the big thing for the uber rich, is to send their children to the Free School for 6th form, and spend 20K a year on tuition to top up.
So when they go for university interviews, they are "state school" children.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
That's a good post. I've been with BUBA for a long time. My company decided that as I was responsible for a large crew and couldn't afford to take time off for illness I should have private medical insurance. Similarly for work I am contracted to travel first or club the theory being that as soon as I get off the plane I have to be ready to work. If I take a UK crew with me they also travel club for the same reason.
Better that those distinctions didn't exist but I reckon they're just about fair enough. If Rishi had said that he has private medical insurance for reasons of work I wouldn't argue. Better we all had the same but as our problems are different our solutions sometimes have to be as well.
By the same token I consider SUVs anti social and would never have one but if someone had to navigate a farm in the Yorkshire Dales I'd be more forgiving.
If you had to navigate a farm, anything but a 4x4 with high ground clearance would end up stuck fairly rapidly.
On the other had, round the corner from me, in West London, we have someone who owns a long wheelbase Landrover, covered in checker plate, with a snorkel and a spade bolted to it. It has fairly obviously, never been in water deeper than the tire tread.
I had to explain to my wife, when I suggested, that since we need a car, we should go one up on the plonker in question and get a 101....
Forward Control I have always called them
top tip, as wheel changes are on the agenda: if you have a Defender the supplied jack is the most Heath Robinson appliance in the universe. There's a thing about the size and shape of a willy which slots into a hole in the bumper except the hole rusts up and it doesn't fit, and even if it does you have to lift to the top of the suspension before the wheel comes off the ground. Get a bottle jack.
Andrew Bridgen may well be an example of a politician (or politician's wife) who is worth listening to when they're flying towards the swamp having been booted out of the door. Robin Cook was another. Not necessarily for the details although they may be interesting but for the direction in which they're chucking stuff.
Brexit Bridgen is obnoxious but any serious rebel has got to smile with at least a tiny bit of approval when they read his f***-you letter to the Standards Commissioner.
Has anyone else noticed that the media (and pb.com) seems to be shuffling Ukraine sideways into the 'Boring and Intractable' file currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?
There seems to be less news coming out of Ukraine over the last week or so. It has been hard to find much. It seems to be a bloodbath on both sides near Bakhmut. That suits the Russians better as they are quite happy to throw mobilised soldiers in as they have more of them. Although the Ukrainian's are clearly having a tough time of it there Ihaven't heard of many missile strikes on Ukraine lately which hopefully is good news.
All the talk of MBTs in the last week is probably being driven by a realisation in the West that Ukraine needs these weapons to push Russia back.
Propagandists on both sides seem to be saying, just wait until the ground freezes then we'll let rip. I reckon nobody is going anywhere particularly quickly. There is a weird stand off where neither side can deploy any mass of tactical aviation but any force build up gets spotted by drones and then blown to fuck by artillery.
I have no idea why Stupidly said he was 'considering' sending CR2. What's to consider? They either need them or they don't.
The issue is that we can only send enough for one squadron. If we do that, and then the Germans follow suit with lots of Leopards and the Americans with lots of Abrams, it doesn't matter that we only sent a dozen. We would have been first, and Ukraine would have received enough overall.
If we send a dozen and then no-one else follows suit with sending their own tanks we look very silly. And a dozen tanks isn't going to help very much.
So there's clearly a lot of diplomatic choreography going on which is very important to the politicians.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
Wading in because I normally agree with you & onlylivingboy but here I differ... I see healthcare as a more essential right than education. I am less tolerant of inequities in healthcare.
For education - I want everyone to get a pretty high standard level of provision, but beyond that I'm okay with there being some inequality based on ability, desire to learn, prioritization of parents etc.
16 or 18 years cut-off seems reasonable to me as the state having set you up okay. And parents deciding to hire a tutor or teach their own children to read is reasonable to me, even though I am sure it is unfair and introduces inequality. Even private schools are fine, although they should lose tax privileges.
For health - I want everyone to get access to the best. I know there are cost limitations at a certain point, but I really hate hate hate the idea that someone is wealthy enough to get cancer drugs to prolong their life and someone else isn't.
Generally agree with you. But is it a given that if you prevented the wealthy buying cancer drugs privately it would make them any more available on the NHS? That is a genuine question not an assertion. I don't know.
If your position is that if they can only be afforded by a small number of people then no one should be allowed to have them then I would disagree with you (I am not saying that is your position by the way). If you are saying that preventing private purchase would make them available for everyone who needed them then I agree with you.
I wouldn't ban private purchase (provided the medication is safe) - and I don't think that doing so would increase availability for the NHS.
But I feel we need to invest a LOT of our societal resources into health collectively to ensure a very, very high standard of care is available to all and to ensure there is no need to go private. It's a sadness to me that sometimes people go to America to get access to care that isn't available here.
To misquote Frank Dobson, we should have a first class service and we should pay a first class fare.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
People have been bludgeoned to death with hammers. Let us treat everyone who uses a hammer as a criminal and do not try telling me that only a tiny percentage of hammer users are murderers!
We need to stamp this out!!!! Public safety demands it.
That is exactly the position taken with gun control in this country. Nearly no-one (by statistical standards) has been murdered with a legally held gun*. But we strictly control firearms.
Crime happens to a minority. Many crimes are extremely rare.
*When the Raul Moat thing happened, I was on a tube train. The advisor to a certain MP was not far away. I heard her say on the phone, quite clearly, that "unfortunately he had the guns illegally, so we can't advance our gun control agenda with that".
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
People have been bludgeoned to death with hammers. Let us treat everyone who uses a hammer as a criminal and do not try telling me that only a tiny percentage of hammer users are murderers!
We need to stamp this out!!!! Public safety demands it.
Until 20 years ago you could go about your business carrying a knife anywhere and for any purpose. Knife crime became a thing, and now you can't. So your satire doesn't really fly, does it? And this is the trouble: you don't think, you just pick a side to go rah rah rah for. and the consequence is eventually fascist legislation like the Victoria State act linked to below. Tell me that only affects a tiny percentage of children, and I am plainly using it as cover for general anti trans bigotry.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
What do you want done that it not being done ? There are numerous studies in numerous countries looking at the long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
@turbotubbs' point was that a lot of the concerns were being driven by one person who has an agenda. The implication was that, if you have any questions about the health side effects of vaccines, you obviously have an anti-vac agenda and / or are a nut. That is not a healthy attitude.
No, thats not true. It is fine to have concerns about the side effects of vaccines. Thats why we have clinical trials, and committees of experts who say yes or no to use, and for whom. All the vaccines went through all the stages of clinical trials that any other medicine has too. In the emergency trials were sped up, not by not doing them, but by running in parallel and by meeting not months after getting data, but hours and days.
We also have the fact that billions of doses have been administered.
Bad faith actors and misguided people are distorting the truth about health issues in a post covid world. One of the biggest sequelae of covid is damage to the heart. So its hardly surprising that we are seeing an increase in heart issues, given that almost everyone has been exposed to covid.
By all means have concerns about vaccines. But then do some research and not on twitter, facebook etc. Look over the published data.
Asseem Malhotra is a weird guy who is distorting facts and evidence for his own reasons. Someone suggested his father died early in covid and that he is using his guilt over that to drive his campaign. Fine - if he believes there are dangers he should make his case with FACTS. Currently he is not. His schtick seems to be to find any other medics who raise concerns on twitter and trumpet this as proof. Yet there are 100s of 1000s of medics in the world - some probably believe pineapple works as a pizza topping, and is best eating while listening to Radiohead.
As a scientist I would always say to ask questions. But always try to ask the right questions.
Cheers for that answer. I'm not a scientist, I have a humanities background so I grasp the general outlines but not the details.
My concerns come not so much from looking at Twitter, Facebook et al - it's clear there are many nut jobs out there. It is more based on past examples and / or what I see in terms of behaviour from my professional experience:
1. The vaccine firms, and managements involved, have legal immunity from damages related to the vaccines. Especially in a situation where there are very significant profits to be made in a short amount of time and / or lead to a dramatic increase in share prices (and managements' option), that is always a red flag. It doesn't mean corners are cut but it does mean the incentives are skewed massively for the parties involved.
2. My understanding is the mRNA technology under normal circumstances would have taken years to be approved but was sped up for Covid (which you mention). Again, while there are safeguards, in a situation where time is sensitive, things get overlooked (wars are great examples of this).
3. History will tell you the scientific community tends to take a rather blase view when it comes to side-effects of medicines, putting it down as the price of progress. There have been plenty of examples where scientists have been somewhat slow to examine the side-effects of a wonder drug and that, in some cases, it has taken public pressure to force an investigation.
4. As you say, "its hardly surprising that we are seeing an increase in heart issues, given that almost everyone has been exposed to covid." The flip side of that argument though is that almost everyone has also had the vaccine. So what is causing the issues - the vaccine or covid? Can you separate out the causation?
5. You can't have cranks asking the questions but you have to make sure those who do ask the questions do not have conflicts of interest. An example from my work - Facebook and Google pushed their attribution models onto advertisers, telling them they were scientific, neutral and backed by their own tests. Now they admit they may not work. I have no doubt they were sincere but there was a clear conflict of interest. On Covid specifically, Peter Daszak is a clear expert. Would I trust him when it comes to the origins of Covid? Absolutely not.
We have one close friend who caught myocarditis post-receiving the vaccine and another who had a stroke at 51 after her shot. Could these be non-vaccine related? Absolutely. I have had mine and have had no problems. But I do find this tendency to shout 'crank!' - and I apologise for suggesting you did - when anyone raises questions as worrying.
1. Not aware that this is the case, but even if it is, the vaccines were all tested to exactly the same standards as other medication. They were approved by independent bodies. Now if a company withheld evidence of harm from the committee, there would be consequences that any immunity would not cover.
2. The speeding up of the testing process did not miss any steps. Rather the sequencing was changed to allow things in parallel, and meetings that would have been months away were a damn sight sooner. The risk was at this point - there is a reason generally to take time and see. As it happened the risk paid off and nothing untoward happened.
3. I think this is a partial misunderstanding of events. If you have a rare side effect, say 1 in 100,000 patients, you may not pick that up in testing of 10,000 patients. Only after approval will the effect start to show up (and this does happen). All post authorisation drugs are monitored for just this eventuality.
4. @Selebian will be able to tell you a lot more as this is more his area, but the way to see is to look at patient records for health events, and take a look at how unvaccinated ones do versus vaccinated. We have plenty of data on patients in 2020 suffering heart damage, all of them unvaccinated. Its a lot harder to find those patients now as most have had the vaccine. But not all.
5. I'm not sure what you mean by this - everyone is right to ask questions, but its important to understand the answers and to have people lying widely on twitter about statistics. Most people don't have time to dig into a study claiming a bit increase in heart deaths in athletes and discovering that Pele was included and indeed someone who died in a car crash.
One of things I love about science is that if stuff is wrong it gets found out. People try to repeat experiments and it doesn't work. I have an example from my own research - I tried to synthesize a compound from a paper, my data didn't match theirs. I checked and the 'data' they provided was fake.* I wasted a few weeks, but the crap stuff was found out. If there were a tidalwave of side effects from vaccines coming we would know by now.
There were side effects. Some people died from the AZ vaccine (although its not totally clear why, and I did see some discussion of poor vaccination technique at the time - arms being pinched etc). But people like Malhotra is being very very naughty with data and I would say abusing his position as a medic (authority) to cast doubt on vaccines with unwarranted concerns.
On 4, I can only speak to this with regard to children (I was peripherally involved in a study lookig at vaccine and Covid effects in children which fed into the JCVI work on vaccinating children). There, there was evidence of heart inflammation in some cases for both children who had Covid and children who had vaccines (pretty much all mRNA, as very few children for AZN). Both appeared generally short-lived issues. Small numbers of problems from both vaccine and Covid and it was hard to draw definite conclusions on relative risk for this outcome (confidence intervals included no difference, largley due to the tiny sample of vaccinated children). This was a routine hospital/primary care data analysis and had many issues, not least of which was uncertainty over who had been infected with Covid.
TLDR: as far as the evidence could show (which was without certainty) both Covid and vaccines were very low risk for children. The study did not look at long Covid due to lack of good recording in the data. But heart inflamation without vaccination was certainly a thing.
I don't know whether this got published at all - I wouldn't have been an author, just had a few chats with people working on it about some of the stats/data aspects.
Has anyone else noticed that the media (and pb.com) seems to be shuffling Ukraine sideways into the 'Boring and Intractable' file currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?
There seems to be less news coming out of Ukraine over the last week or so. It has been hard to find much. It seems to be a bloodbath on both sides near Bakhmut. That suits the Russians better as they are quite happy to throw mobilised soldiers in as they have more of them. Although the Ukrainian's are clearly having a tough time of it there Ihaven't heard of many missile strikes on Ukraine lately which hopefully is good news.
All the talk of MBTs in the last week is probably being driven by a realisation in the West that Ukraine needs these weapons to push Russia back.
Propagandists on both sides seem to be saying, just wait until the ground freezes then we'll let rip. I reckon nobody is going anywhere particularly quickly. There is a weird stand off where neither side can deploy any mass of tactical aviation but any force build up gets spotted by drones and then blown to fuck by artillery.
I have no idea why Stupidly said he was 'considering' sending CR2. What's to consider? They either need them or they don't.
The issue is that we can only send enough for one squadron. If we do that, and then the Germans follow suit with lots of Leopards and the Americans with lots of Abrams, it doesn't matter that we only sent a dozen. We would have been first, and Ukraine would have received enough overall.
If we send a dozen and then no-one else follows suit with sending their own tanks we look very silly. And a dozen tanks isn't going to help very much.
So there's clearly a lot of diplomatic choreography going on which is very important to the politicians.
I think 10 was mentioned (plus spares) - which would specifically provide enough for one unit in the Ukrainian style military. 3 units of 3 and an overall unit commander, I believe.
The suggestion from various sources is that the Germans are the block to supplying tanks. Most of the people wanting to supply tanks have Leopards. Which are being blocked by the end user thing, by the Germans.
Sending a dozen CR2 would break the impasse (again, according to various sources) - either the German would have to accept that future exports of tanks to Ukraine, from Germany, would never happen (££££), or they would have to give their consent to the Leopards from various sources as well.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
People have been bludgeoned to death with hammers. Let us treat everyone who uses a hammer as a criminal and do not try telling me that only a tiny percentage of hammer users are murderers!
We need to stamp this out!!!! Public safety demands it.
That is, to some extent, our attitude to guns and knives, and it seems to be effective in reducing the harm caused by those weapons.
Hammers seem to be a bit harder to attack people with than guns or knives, so the risk/hassle equation comes to a different balance.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
So you can use your money to buy expensive holidays abroad or Michelin starred meals or 5 star hotels or shop at M & S or drive a Mercedes others can't but apparently not buy your children an excellent education? Absurd.
What is needed is more choice in state education with more free schools, grammars and academies not attacking private schools
Without necessarily disagreeing with some of what you have said I think you miss an important point in comparing a Michelin Star meal, etc with education. They are very different.
I would argue it is a human right for every child regardless of wealth, background, etc to have an equal opportunity of an excellent education and health care.
I don't believe it is a human right to have an expensive holiday, a Michelin star meal, 5 star hotel, shop at M&S or drive a Mercedes.
So they are very different and consequently can not be compared.
Its not possible to have "equal opportunity" for education though. Where do you draw the line?
Would you make it illegal to buy or rent a home in the catchment area of good schools? Or perhaps abolish catchment areas altogether and replace with a US-style bussing system so that where you live doesn't determine what school you go to?
Would you make it illegal to get outside tutoring or support?
Would you abolish libraries to prevent some children from having extra access to books because they go a library while others don't?
Would you abolish bookstores for the above reason?
Would you admonish parents who read to their kids at night, or support them with their homework, or practice their times tables with them etc?
We should be seeking to maximise people's opportunities, without punishing or preventing those parents that value education and seek to go even further. The most important things for education can be those like reading at home that have little to do with the school anyway, and that can't be prevented and nor should it.
Don't disagree with that @BartholomewRoberts . I'm not ideological. Just making the point that hyufd's comparing education to a posh car is invalid. No one has a right to a posh car. Everyone has a right to a good education.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
Like Rishi, you don't know any working-class people then.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
Send your children to Eton/Winchester and they will buy you sports cars....
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
Like Rishi, you don't know any working-class people then.
I think part of his challenge is he’s presiding over a period where the governments failings are really coming home to roost, but he is showing that he is not a particularly deft political operator either. The NHS GP issue just a complete unforced error, by way of one example.
He’s much better than his two immediate predecessors (but most people would be) but I can’t see him being able to revive Tory fortunes to any significant extent.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
So you can use your money to buy expensive holidays abroad or Michelin starred meals or 5 star hotels or shop at M & S or drive a Mercedes others can't but apparently not buy your children an excellent education? Absurd.
What is needed is more choice in state education with more free schools, grammars and academies not attacking private schools
Without necessarily disagreeing with some of what you have said I think you miss an important point in comparing a Michelin Star meal, etc with education. They are very different.
I would argue it is a human right for every child regardless of wealth, background, etc to have an equal opportunity of an excellent education and health care.
I don't believe it is a human right to have an expensive holiday, a Michelin star meal, 5 star hotel, shop at M&S or drive a Mercedes.
So they are very different and consequently can not be compared.
Its not possible to have "equal opportunity" for education though. Where do you draw the line?
Would you make it illegal to buy or rent a home in the catchment area of good schools? Or perhaps abolish catchment areas altogether and replace with a US-style bussing system so that where you live doesn't determine what school you go to?
Would you make it illegal to get outside tutoring or support?
Would you abolish libraries to prevent some children from having extra access to books because they go a library while others don't?
Would you abolish bookstores for the above reason?
Would you admonish parents who read to their kids at night, or support them with their homework, or practice their times tables with them etc?
We should be seeking to maximise people's opportunities, without punishing or preventing those parents that value education and seek to go even further. The most important things for education can be those like reading at home that have little to do with the school anyway, and that can't be prevented and nor should it.
Don't disagree with that @BartholomewRoberts . I'm not ideological. Just making the point that hyufd's comparing education to a posh car is invalid. No one has a right to a posh car. Everyone has a right to a good education.
Are you sure about the posh car thing?
{Starts searching for judges who believe a car with 4 figure horsepower is a human right}
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
So you can use your money to buy expensive holidays abroad or Michelin starred meals or 5 star hotels or shop at M & S or drive a Mercedes others can't but apparently not buy your children an excellent education? Absurd.
What is needed is more choice in state education with more free schools, grammars and academies not attacking private schools
Without necessarily disagreeing with some of what you have said I think you miss an important point in comparing a Michelin Star meal, etc with education. They are very different.
I would argue it is a human right for every child regardless of wealth, background, etc to have an equal opportunity of an excellent education and health care.
I don't believe it is a human right to have an expensive holiday, a Michelin star meal, 5 star hotel, shop at M&S or drive a Mercedes.
So they are very different and consequently can not be compared.
Its not possible to have "equal opportunity" for education though. Where do you draw the line?
Would you make it illegal to buy or rent a home in the catchment area of good schools? Or perhaps abolish catchment areas altogether and replace with a US-style bussing system so that where you live doesn't determine what school you go to?
Would you make it illegal to get outside tutoring or support?
Would you abolish libraries to prevent some children from having extra access to books because they go a library while others don't?
Would you abolish bookstores for the above reason?
Would you admonish parents who read to their kids at night, or support them with their homework, or practice their times tables with them etc?
We should be seeking to maximise people's opportunities, without punishing or preventing those parents that value education and seek to go even further. The most important things for education can be those like reading at home that have little to do with the school anyway, and that can't be prevented and nor should it.
Don't disagree with that @BartholomewRoberts . I'm not ideological. Just making the point that hyufd's comparing education to a posh car is invalid. No one has a right to a posh car. Everyone has a right to a good education.
Why not? Why should not everyone have the right to a posh car? If you want Communism for education why not Communism for the economy too?
Except it would not be excellent education and posh cars for all but bog standard comp and Trabant for all in reality!
Comments
All the talk of MBTs in the last week is probably being driven by a realisation in the West that Ukraine needs these weapons to push Russia back.
He's testified before Congress at some length on the issue, and is vehemently against voluntary euthanasia, too.
But you probably knew that.
- Natal sex?
- Based on presence of sex organs?
- Based on receipt (or not) of x-sex hormones?
There are possible arguments for all of those, depending on the situation. Natal sex tends to imply physical strength and size, for example (although not universally, of course, and depending to some extent on the age of other interventions). Presence of a penis is of course relevant to some sexual safeguarding, but a natal male in long term receipt of x-sex hormones may be unable to have an erection. All shades of grey, as I think you appreciate.
And there is no implied or explicit 'despite' in my post.
I do not intend to be patronising. My position is fairly simple: let people live how they want to live, as long as they don't hurt others in the process. It's of no real interest to me if you, or anyone else, is straight. Or gay. Or bi. Or is into bondage. Or is a furry. If someone is not a threat, leave them be.
And all this fuss over toilets *does* hurt trans people, and if taken the way some want it to go, would make it impossible for people to transition. Which I fear is what some people want.
https://order-order.com/2023/01/11/blue-on-blue-row-as-bridgen-compares-vaccines-to-holocaust
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1354464604273971200/photo/1
Being concerned about the rights and safeguarding of women and children is not “anti-trans”. Why do you think Stonewall et al demand “no debate”?
And good for Sunak.
I was surprised that there was zero discussion of the BBC programme Ukraine: The People's Fight last week, which had its faults but was v. interesting as these things tend to be. Not the least interesting thing was that a volunteer army may have similar problems with discipline and following orders with its men as it does with the Internationals.
The old saw about war being long periods of tedium interspersed occasionally with short bursts of pant-shitting, adrenaline-filled action may also be taking its toll on the couch commandos.
If I am going to Aberdeen or anywhere north of the Central Valley I go up the A1 as far as Scotch Corner and then over the A66 and up the west side M6/M74. It is considerably longer in distance but a lot quicker most of the time. Probably not practical for going to Edinburgh.
My gran on my mothers side got past 90. While living in somewhat sheltered accommodation (flat with services and frequent checks), she was mobile, independent and alert.
Right up until they found her, sitting dressed to go out, with her tea getting cold.
If eg a rape crisis centre is female-only, then having a no person with a penis policy might make sense for safeguarding reasons. Whether someone can or can not maintain an erection isn't necessarily the concern. A separate crisis centre may not be female-only so may not have the same safeguarding priorities.
Similarly for sport, if someone has ever had male testosterone via natural puberty then they might never be able to fairly compete in female sport since having had male testosterone leads to physical changes that even a course of hormone treatment including removal of the penis does not reverse.
All or nothing doesn't work, people need to think through carefully what matters and come up with whatever safeguarding policies work best to ensure safety, fairness etc concerns are best met.
Personally I think we should treat all people with kindness and respect, if somebody wants to be called something else or identify as a woman, basic manners would dictate how we respond. It really seems no different to getting somebody's name right.
If they don't impinge on anyone else - which let's be honest, they don't in 99.999% of cases - then I really don't see what the issue is.
MPs have agreed to suspend Tory MP Andrew Bridgen after he was found to have displayed a "very cavalier" attitude to the rules in a series of lobbying breaches
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1613134418868146176
What is needed is more choice in state education with more free schools, grammars and academies not attacking private schools
That’s humans being human.
If Josias moved to Victoria, and if his ten year old child said casually that it thought it might be trans, and if Josias said Are you sure about that? We need to think carefully about this one, he could go to prison for ten years. Does he think that is not true? It is. Does he think it is a sane state of affairs? Does he not think that people like him polishing their woke credentials by detecting anti transness in any commentary on the situation, are in large part responsible for this, frankly, fascist insanity?
On Health I agree with you but I don't feel as strongly about it because there isn't imo the same cascading impact on inequality. But, yes, the notion of really good healthcare for all, regardless of ability to pay, is not something I think we should give up on, despite the cost challenge.
It won't happen but I'd like to see this choice put honestly to the electorate. Should we tax enough to properly fund welfare and universal public services or should we scale back what is provided collectively and allow private means to dictate things?
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
It is crazy though that there isn't even a dual carriageway option. When the A1(not-M-honest) was being built past Dunbar there was a conversation between English and Scottish authorities about dualling the lot. Scotland was prepared to go as far as Berwick if England would do their side, was told no, so we have this long gap.
Why is this issue so complicated? Do not understand
On the other hand there's a big NATO meeting at Ramstein due this month.
The west has recently agreed to supply some rather better armoured kit (Marders, Bradleys and the AMX10) than previously, and possibly now tanks, too.
If the situation hasn't changed by March, then you might have a point. A few weeks without significant territorial changes doesn't yet mean much.
My concerns come not so much from looking at Twitter, Facebook et al - it's clear there are many nut jobs out there. It is more based on past examples and / or what I see in terms of behaviour from my professional experience:
1. The vaccine firms, and managements involved, have legal immunity from damages related to the vaccines. Especially in a situation where there are very significant profits to be made in a short amount of time and / or lead to a dramatic increase in share prices (and managements' option), that is always a red flag. It doesn't mean corners are cut but it does mean the incentives are skewed massively for the parties involved.
2. My understanding is the mRNA technology under normal circumstances would have taken years to be approved but was sped up for Covid (which you mention). Again, while there are safeguards, in a situation where time is sensitive, things get overlooked (wars are great examples of this).
3. History will tell you the scientific community tends to take a rather blase view when it comes to side-effects of medicines, putting it down as the price of progress. There have been plenty of examples where scientists have been somewhat slow to examine the side-effects of a wonder drug and that, in some cases, it has taken public pressure to force an investigation.
4. As you say, "its hardly surprising that we are seeing an increase in heart issues, given that almost everyone has been exposed to covid." The flip side of that argument though is that almost everyone has also had the vaccine. So what is causing the issues - the vaccine or covid? Can you separate out the causation?
5. You can't have cranks asking the questions but you have to make sure those who do ask the questions do not have conflicts of interest. An example from my work - Facebook and Google pushed their attribution models onto advertisers, telling them they were scientific, neutral and backed by their own tests. Now they admit they may not work. I have no doubt they were sincere but there was a clear conflict of interest. On Covid specifically, Peter Daszak is a clear expert. Would I trust him when it comes to the origins of Covid? Absolutely not.
We have one close friend who caught myocarditis post-receiving the vaccine and another who had a stroke at 51 after her shot. Could these be non-vaccine related? Absolutely. I have had mine and have had no problems. But I do find this tendency to shout 'crank!' - and I apologise for suggesting you did - when anyone raises questions as worrying.
As a matter of interest, where did you get the 'locked up for ten years' for talking to a kid about his sexuality and gender?
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
But it doesn't work that way.
However it is a long drive either way
Cyclefree has a particular concern for the rights of women - there's nothing wrong with that.
You have a particular concern for the rights of trans people - there's nothing wrong with that.
Saying "be concerned with all" doesn't mean you can't be especially concerned with some. That's like saying to someone saying "black lives matter" that you should instead be saying "all lives matter", or to someone saying "justice for the 96 [now 97]" that they should instead be saying justice for all.
There is nothing wrong with having extra concern for people who are seriously wronged in the current system, whether that be women, black people, trans, children, dead football fans or anyone else.
And there are some on the trans debate, like so many other debates, who wish to be 'wokier than you' and end up pushing everything to extremes.
Most people are nice. Most people are kind. Most just want to get on with living nice lives. But there are monsters in the real world, and sometimes people need to make a stand.
(^ For information only.)
"we would talk about it" is weasel words. you wouldn't, in Victoria, have a pros and cons conversation about it.
https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-02/21-3aa001 authorised.pdf
You happy with that?
If your position is that if they can only be afforded by a small number of people then no one should be allowed to have them then I would disagree with you (I am not saying that is your position by the way). If you are saying that preventing private purchase would make them available for everyone who needed them then I agree with you.
I think disabled toilets [which are typically single cubicle/gender-neutral] should be easier to access (I don't like places that lock the disabled toilet and ask people to ask for a key for it) and I think for someone eg physically male in female clothes it may make sense to use the disabled toilets rather than either male or female. But its not a major safeguarding issue for me personally, act with common sense is my view.
I would argue it is a human right for every child regardless of wealth, background, etc to have an equal opportunity of an excellent education and health care.
I don't believe it is a human right to have an expensive holiday, a Michelin star meal, 5 star hotel, shop at M&S or drive a Mercedes.
So they are very different and consequently can not be compared.
Better that those distinctions didn't exist but I reckon they're just about fair enough. If Rishi had said that he has private medical insurance for reasons of work I wouldn't argue. Better we all had the same but as our problems are different our solutions sometimes have to be as well.
By the same token I consider SUVs anti social and would never have one but if someone had to navigate a farm in the Yorkshire Dales I'd be more forgiving.
Cf. "Who do you think you are, thinking for yourself like that?"
2. The speeding up of the testing process did not miss any steps. Rather the sequencing was changed to allow things in parallel, and meetings that would have been months away were a damn sight sooner. The risk was at this point - there is a reason generally to take time and see. As it happened the risk paid off and nothing untoward happened.
3. I think this is a partial misunderstanding of events. If you have a rare side effect, say 1 in 100,000 patients, you may not pick that up in testing of 10,000 patients. Only after approval will the effect start to show up (and this does happen). All post authorisation drugs are monitored for just this eventuality.
4. @Selebian will be able to tell you a lot more as this is more his area, but the way to see is to look at patient records for health events, and take a look at how unvaccinated ones do versus vaccinated. We have plenty of data on patients in 2020 suffering heart damage, all of them unvaccinated. Its a lot harder to find those patients now as most have had the vaccine. But not all.
5. I'm not sure what you mean by this - everyone is right to ask questions, but its important to understand the answers and to have people lying widely on twitter about statistics. Most people don't have time to dig into a study claiming a bit increase in heart deaths in athletes and discovering that Pele was included and indeed someone who died in a car crash.
One of things I love about science is that if stuff is wrong it gets found out. People try to repeat experiments and it doesn't work. I have an example from my own research - I tried to synthesize a compound from a paper, my data didn't match theirs. I checked and the 'data' they provided was fake.* I wasted a few weeks, but the crap stuff was found out. If there were a tidalwave of side effects from vaccines coming we would know by now.
There were side effects. Some people died from the AZ vaccine (although its not totally clear why, and I did see some discussion of poor vaccination technique at the time - arms being pinched etc). But people like Malhotra is being very very naughty with data and I would say abusing his position as a medic (authority) to cast doubt on vaccines with unwarranted concerns.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/21005088/wwe-newcastle-saudi-arabia-vince-mcmahon/
*and lest we forget, he did actually propose an incest storyline between him and his daughter in the 2000s.
I have no idea why Stupidly said he was 'considering' sending CR2. What's to consider? They either need them or they don't.
The Russians are continuing with the campaign against infrastructure - but this is doing less and less. Wagner are still recreating WWI at Soledar - right down to the 1-1 scale models of ground taken/retaken.
Everyone is talking about Spring Offensives.....
Would you make it illegal to buy or rent a home in the catchment area of good schools? Or perhaps abolish catchment areas altogether and replace with a US-style bussing system so that where you live doesn't determine what school you go to?
Would you make it illegal to get outside tutoring or support?
Would you abolish libraries to prevent some children from having extra access to books because they go a library while others don't?
Would you abolish bookstores for the above reason?
Would you admonish parents who read to their kids at night, or support them with their homework, or practice their times tables with them etc?
We should be seeking to maximise people's opportunities, without punishing or preventing those parents that value education and seek to go even further. The most important things for education can be those like reading at home that have little to do with the school anyway, and that can't be prevented and nor should it.
In practice, I doubt it would make a huge amount of difference. NHS can secure big discounts on a list price anyway and will generally pay what it takes for things that are cost effective. Most of the headline 'cancer drug X not available on NHS' are due to the benefits being uncertain or not justifying the cost - drug helps a bit, but the money is far better spent elsewhere, but there is a market selling to wealthy individuals or to insurers who simply cover the costs through premiums by having access to fancy but not hugely effective** cancer drugs as a selling point.
* which is a complex calculation depending on how much you can shift for how long - will the treated condition become more or less prevalent; will a competitor come up with a better drug in two years that ends sale of yours?
** but only to an extent. The NHS (and other large customers) will generally secure supplies at a significant discount on the list price (if a list price is public).
*** ignores that there are many other health providers in the world, even if private healthcare was e.g. outlawed in the UK
**** gives you say an extra 6 months to 1 year reasonable quality life. Needs to cost no more than £20-£30k (at most) for NICE to see it as cost effective, but certainly something that can be sold to someone with that cash or private health insurance
ETA: MenB (wa it MenB? one of the meningitis vaccines anyway) vaccine was interesting case in point. Kills (a very few) children, so emotive. Vaccine effective but very very expensive. colleagues did the cost benefit analysis and didn't pass NICE threshold, so no rollout (simply because very few die from lack of vaccine). Public (well, press) outcry, NHS and manufacturer come to an arrangement on price that squeezes under (or at least near) cost effective (details secret). Vaccine provided. Vaccine would always have been available privately in either case.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
On the other had, round the corner from me, in West London, we have someone who owns a long wheelbase Landrover, covered in checker plate, with a snorkel and a spade bolted to it. It has fairly obviously, never been in water deeper than the tire tread.
I had to explain to my wife, when I suggested, that since we need a car, we should go one up on the plonker in question and get a 101....
CV's post seemed to me to be saying, very credibly, that trans activist wazzockry is making life harder for the trans.
We need to stamp this out!!!! Public safety demands it.
So when they go for university interviews, they are "state school" children.
top tip, as wheel changes are on the agenda: if you have a Defender the supplied jack is the most Heath Robinson appliance in the universe. There's a thing about the size and shape of a willy which slots into a hole in the bumper except the hole rusts up and it doesn't fit, and even if it does you have to lift to the top of the suspension before the wheel comes off the ground. Get a bottle jack.
Brexit Bridgen is obnoxious but any serious rebel has got to smile with at least a tiny bit of approval when they read his f***-you letter to the Standards Commissioner.
If we send a dozen and then no-one else follows suit with sending their own tanks we look very silly. And a dozen tanks isn't going to help very much.
So there's clearly a lot of diplomatic choreography going on which is very important to the politicians.
But I feel we need to invest a LOT of our societal resources into health collectively to ensure a very, very high standard of care is available to all and to ensure there is no need to go private. It's a sadness to me that sometimes people go to America to get access to care that isn't available here.
To misquote Frank Dobson, we should have a first class service and we should pay a first class fare.
Crime happens to a minority. Many crimes are extremely rare.
*When the Raul Moat thing happened, I was on a tube train. The advisor to a certain MP was not far away. I heard her say on the phone, quite clearly, that "unfortunately he had the guns illegally, so we can't advance our gun control agenda with that".
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
TLDR: as far as the evidence could show (which was without certainty) both Covid and vaccines were very low risk for children. The study did not look at long Covid due to lack of good recording in the data. But heart inflamation without vaccination was certainly a thing.
I don't know whether this got published at all - I wouldn't have been an author, just had a few chats with people working on it about some of the stats/data aspects.
The suggestion from various sources is that the Germans are the block to supplying tanks. Most of the people wanting to supply tanks have Leopards. Which are being blocked by the end user thing, by the Germans.
Sending a dozen CR2 would break the impasse (again, according to various sources) - either the German would have to accept that future exports of tanks to Ukraine, from Germany, would never happen (££££), or they would have to give their consent to the Leopards from various sources as well.
Hammers seem to be a bit harder to attack people with than guns or knives, so the risk/hassle equation comes to a different balance.
Seems to have worked for Sunak's parents.
I think part of his challenge is he’s presiding over a period where the governments failings are really coming home to roost, but he is showing that he is not a particularly deft political operator either. The NHS GP issue just a complete unforced error, by way of one example.
He’s much better than his two immediate predecessors (but most people would be) but I can’t see him being able to revive Tory fortunes to any significant extent.
{Starts searching for judges who believe a car with 4 figure horsepower is a human right}
Except it would not be excellent education and posh cars for all but bog standard comp and Trabant for all in reality!
It's difficult to score it as a Sunak win, but I don't think he lost PMQs today.