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.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
Och well, at least the Vaxx is not as bad as the Holocaust.
Worse than the killing fields of Cambodia, but not as bad as the Holocaust is quite a precise grading. I'm not even wholly certain that the killing fields of Cambodia are the worst since the Holocaust. A lot has happened in the past nearly eight decades.
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.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
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.
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 be excellent education and posh cars for all but bog standard comp and Trabant for all in reality!
You seem to have ignored the fact that I said that I didn't disagree with some of what you posted. You should try and not argue when some agrees with you!
So I don't want Communism for education and I am in favour of some freedom in education. I simply made the point that education is a human right. Owning a posh car is not. They are very different.
As you well know I am far more in favour of free enterprise and a liberal economy than you. However health and education are very different to most freedoms and we should ensure all get a fair crack of the whip regardless of wealth.
Sunak responds to first question by saying he is registered with a GP and has used independent health faculties in the past
The weight of the issues laid out don't favour the government but Sunak dodged and counter punched effectively today.
It's difficult to score it as a Sunak win, but I don't think he lost PMQs today.
I know it is a way off but the GE campaign Sunak v Starmer will be very interesting
Also would be the first election neither the Labour left nor the Conservative right have their preferred candidate leading their party since Blair v Major in 1997.
"independent" healthcare, WTF just say private you lightweight
Healthcare that is not a burden on the NHS.
The NHS needs as many people going somewhere else as it can get.
The counter argument is that nearly all the staff also work in the NHS. The counter counter argument is that is their right to work where they want. The counter counter counter....
"independent" healthcare, WTF just say private you lightweight
Healthcare that is not a burden on the NHS.
The NHS needs as many people going somewhere else as it can get.
In Australia in 1997 one of the first things the incoming Liberal government did was to introduce tax breaks for private healthcare/insurance as anyone doing that would ease the pressure on Medicare [their NHS].
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 it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
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.
I am not worried about people with hammers, but it is a approach that lends itself to being over-extended and misapplied.
Perhaps a more pertinent example would be the attitude of people to amateur photographers where even coppers have (often wrongly) banned them from photographing public spaces where they actually have every right to take pictures.
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 be excellent education and posh cars for all but bog standard comp and Trabant for all in reality!
You seem to have ignored the fact that I said that I didn't disagree with some of what you posted. You should try and not argue when some agrees with you!
So I don't want Communism for education and I am in favour of some freedom in education. I simply made the point that education is a human right. Owning a posh car is not. They are very different.
As you well know I am far more in favour of free enterprise and a liberal economy than you. However health and education are very different to most freedoms and we should ensure all get a fair crack of the whip regardless of wealth.
Yes and we have state education don't we which private school parents pay for through their taxes to fund that human right.
We don't have private school parents paying taxes for parents at the local comp to buy a Ferrari but we do allow private school parents to pay for their children to attend that private school (which also normally will fund bursaries for bright pupils of lesser means anyway)
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 it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be 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!" ?
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.
I am not worried about people with hammers, but it is a approach that lends itself to being over-extended and misapplied.
Perhaps a more pertinent example would be the attitude of people to amateur photographers where even coppers have (often wrongly) banned them from photographing public spaces where they actually have every right to take pictures.
You should have seen the horror on the policeman's face when I told him that any bad people would be long lensing him from a mile away, with a 900mm lens that is about 15 cm long, physically.
Sunak responds to first question by saying he is registered with a GP and has used independent health faculties in the past
The weight of the issues laid out don't favour the government but Sunak dodged and counter punched effectively today.
It's difficult to score it as a Sunak win, but I don't think he lost PMQs today.
I know it is a way off but the GE campaign Sunak v Starmer will be very interesting
Actually I think that interesting is the last thing it will be.
It seems to me that the next GE must be interesting for the simple reason that there are several possible outcomes, including some really complex ones. The boring elections (1987, 2005 perhaps) lack this quality.
The situation makes up for the boring characters and the absence of policy difference at a philosophical level.
"independent" healthcare, WTF just say private you lightweight
Healthcare that is not a burden on the NHS.
The NHS needs as many people going somewhere else as it can get.
Given that the NHS faces an acute staff shortage, I'm not sure how giving more money to private providers who compete with the NHS for staff is going to help.
"independent" healthcare, WTF just say private you lightweight
Healthcare that is not a burden on the NHS.
The NHS needs as many people going somewhere else as it can get.
Given that the NHS faces an acute staff shortage, I'm not sure how giving more money to private providers who compete with the NHS for staff is going to help.
Many NHS staff say that the private work helps to support them... and round and round it goes.
"independent" healthcare, WTF just say private you lightweight
Healthcare that is not a burden on the NHS.
The NHS needs as many people going somewhere else as it can get.
In Australia in 1997 one of the first things the incoming Liberal government did was to introduce tax breaks for private healthcare/insurance as anyone doing that would ease the pressure on Medicare [their NHS].
The Tories proposed something similar in 2005 in the form of vouchers. The problem is you're effectively defunding the NHS as you're giving tax breaks to people who would have gone private anyway.
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!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
"independent" healthcare, WTF just say private you lightweight
Healthcare that is not a burden on the NHS.
The NHS needs as many people going somewhere else as it can get.
In Australia in 1997 one of the first things the incoming Liberal government did was to introduce tax breaks for private healthcare/insurance as anyone doing that would ease the pressure on Medicare [their NHS].
The Tories proposed something similar in 2005 in the form of vouchers. The problem is you're effectively defunding the NHS as you're giving tax breaks to people who would have gone private anyway.
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.
The McQueen 'King of Cool' approach when he got terminal C. Retire to the desert with your g/f and your bikes and whatever will be will be.
Have a feeling that won't be me, come the time.
Unfortunately I think old Steve went in for all sorts of alternative treatments at the end, I fear he may have been an Ivermectin guy if still around. Still, Ali McGraw and a Husqvarna sounds pretty good.
This what Andrew Tate sees when looking at his reflection
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.
All excellent points from Turbotubbs post, btw. The only other thing I'd add on 2 was that Covid vaccine development was aided by the prevalence of Covid. If doing a trial, you need anough outcomes (infections in this case) to be able to tell whether the intervention is effective. You can get those much more easily with somethng like Covid where 1 in 30 or whatever are infected compared to most things that are comparatively much more rare. The requied followup time to test effectiveness was therefore shorter than normal.
Och well, at least the Vaxx is not as bad as the Holocaust.
What a disgraceful comment to make.
On the other hand, it is handy.
Using the holocaust comparison like that seats the author in the “Bat shit insane, and nasty with it” section, without having to waste more time on it, reading his shit.
Bit like people tattooing swastikas on their foreheads. I agree with the chap in Inglorious Bastards - much better to have people like that visibly labelled.
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.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
It should be, but it is fast becoming another weapon in the crossfire war between opposing sides. Something that is becoming more and more common these days.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
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!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
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.
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.
I am not worried about people with hammers, but it is a approach that lends itself to being over-extended and misapplied.
Perhaps a more pertinent example would be the attitude of people to amateur photographers where even coppers have (often wrongly) banned them from photographing public spaces where they actually have every right to take pictures.
I assume we're still talking about safeguarding here?
I'm a man. Therefore, for reasons of safeguarding, I am excluded from certain spaces, roles and tasks. I'm certain that, as an individual, I do not pose a risk to women and girls, but I accept that, because I belong to the class of people labelled as men, that it is appropriate to exclude me from some situations on that basis.
The question then is, for the purposes of safeguarding, at what point does someone cease to be a member of the risk group - that is male?
Self-declaration seems to be a very weak constraint. After all, I have already self-declared as not being a personal risk to women and girls, but that is not sufficient. I don't think this is an easy question to answer, which means it will take a bit of debate to work out.
This doesn't seem unreasonable or anti-trans, but the logic of the "trans women are women" and if you disagree you're a transphobe position, is that there is no debate to be had. A person can self-declare as no longer male and that's the end of it.
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.
All excellent points from Turbotubbs post, btw. The only other thing I'd add on 2 was that Covid vaccine development was aided by the prevalence of Covid. If doing a trial, you need anough outcomes (infections in this case) to be able to tell whether the intervention is effective. You can get those much more easily with somethng like Covid where 1 in 30 or whatever are infected compared to most things that are comparatively much more rare. The requied followup time to test effectiveness was therefore shorter than normal.
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.
The McQueen 'King of Cool' approach when he got terminal C. Retire to the desert with your g/f and your bikes and whatever will be will be.
Have a feeling that won't be me, come the time.
Unfortunately I think old Steve went in for all sorts of alternative treatments at the end, I fear he may have been an Ivermectin guy if still around. Still, Ali McGraw and a Husqvarna sounds pretty good.
This what Andrew Tate sees when looking at his reflection
When in fact the reality is
lol - Tate is almost too bad to be true, isn't he.
As for Steve, ah ok, I'll consign to the long list of romantic urban myths about macho heroes. Second thoughts no I won't! - I want to believe this one!
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.
The irony is that the disco 1 (identical running gear to a 200/300 tdi defender) came with a really neat two stage bottle jack under the bonnet, designed to lift directly under the axle. I've several which I've recovered from scrap discos I broke up to put the engines into series landrovers - being two stage, they are much more useful than most bottle jack's when working on old cars.
At PMQs Sunak said he's registered with an NHS GP. I wonder if he used his words carefully - 'registered' is not quite the same as using. I'd guess anybody who used exclusively private health services would still be wise to 'register' with an NHS GP, just in case.
Having said that, I couldn't really give a toss about his personal/private arrangements. All I know is he's spectacularly rich.
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?
I believe I have shown plenty of such concern in the past. I've also mentioned the high levels of violence in our society using the official stats, such as those below. There is far too much abuse and violence in our society, and it is sadly too often seen as 'acceptable'. And whilst the victims can be women and girls, men or boys, gay or straight; the perpetrators can also be women, girls, men, boys, gays or straight. It is a complex story.
The problem is the levels of violence in our country.
I don't see a male victim of abuse or violence to be any less worthy of sympathy than a female victim. The problem is not the victim; it's the people who perform violent and abusive acts, whoever they may be.
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.
The irony is that the disco 1 (identical running gear to a 200/300 tdi defender) came with a really neat two stage bottle jack under the bonnet, designed to lift directly under the axle. I've several which I've recovered from scrap discos I broke up to put the engines into series landrovers - being two stage, they are much more useful than most bottle jack's when working on old cars.
My old 110 had a rather heavy jack with a very long handle. Annoyingly whilst I remember the handle, I can't fully recall the type of jack - I think it was a vertical ratchet one.
The funnest thing was changing the wheel on a JCB 3CX. Don't bother with a jack; put the backactor on the ground and lift the wheels using that. For front wheels, use the front bucket in the same way.
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.
I am not worried about people with hammers, but it is a approach that lends itself to being over-extended and misapplied.
Perhaps a more pertinent example would be the attitude of people to amateur photographers where even coppers have (often wrongly) banned them from photographing public spaces where they actually have every right to take pictures.
I assume we're still talking about safeguarding here?
I'm a man. Therefore, for reasons of safeguarding, I am excluded from certain spaces, roles and tasks. I'm certain that, as an individual, I do not pose a risk to women and girls, but I accept that, because I belong to the class of people labelled as men, that it is appropriate to exclude me from some situations on that basis.
The question then is, for the purposes of safeguarding, at what point does someone cease to be a member of the risk group - that is male?
Self-declaration seems to be a very weak constraint. After all, I have already self-declared as not being a personal risk to women and girls, but that is not sufficient. I don't think this is an easy question to answer, which means it will take a bit of debate to work out.
This doesn't seem unreasonable or anti-trans, but the logic of the "trans women are women" and if you disagree you're a transphobe position, is that there is no debate to be had. A person can self-declare as no longer male and that's the end of it.
The vast, vast majority of men are no risk to women. The vast majority of trans people are no threat either. Having met several dozen of them through a charity I was involved with, for most of them, their lives are a mess, everything is difficult and many of them live in fear on a day to day basis until they get help and support. All the ones I met wanted nothing more than to fade into obscurity.
If I exposed myself to others in a toilet or other female space, should being a woman save me from prosecution? Of course not - it is the behaviour not the person that matters.
Criminals will always break the law. It is a job requirement for them....
I don't see a male victim of abuse or violence to be any less worthy of sympathy than a female victim. The problem is not the victim; it's the people who perform violent and abusive acts, whoever they may be.
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.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
It should be, but it is fast becoming another weapon in the crossfire war between opposing sides. Something that is becoming more and more common these days.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
Yes the all or nothing nature of the internet and Twitter especially is a problem, hence why I dislike that and said that from the start we should ideally IMHO reject that and go with sensible policies instead. Give as much flexibility and care as we can, but don't violate safeguarding where it matters.
If someone wants to be called "they" that is not a safeguarding concern. Anyone who objects to that is being silly, and anyone who objects on the grounds that its a plural word only is both categorically wrong and silly.
If someone wants to go into protected grounds, then that needs to be treated sensitively and sensibly, not a blanket policy.
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.
No, because it's not the UK. Now tell me about the Taliban's view on gay people.
You are excelling yourself today. It's first world western liberal consensus.
But, anyway, I take it from your analogy you are not happy with it. So we have established the absolutely critical point that ostensibly pro-trans, ill thought out legislation can produce insane and horrible results. Major step forward.
Interesting bit of research uncovering one of the biological mechanisms associated with memory.
DNA G-quadruplex is a transcriptional control device that regulates memory https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.09.523337v1 The conformational state of DNA fine-tunes the transcriptional rate and abundance of RNA. Here we report that DNA G-quadruplex (G4-DNA) accumulates in neurons in an experience-dependent manner, and that this is required for the transient silencing and activation of genes that are critically involved in learning and memory. In addition, site-specific resolution of G4-DNA by dCas9-mediated deposition of the helicase DHX36 impairs fear extinction memory. Dynamic DNA structure states therefore represent a key molecular mechanism underlying memory consolidation.
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!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
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.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
It should be, but it is fast becoming another weapon in the crossfire war between opposing sides. Something that is becoming more and more common these days.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
Yes the all or nothing nature of the internet and Twitter especially is a problem, hence why I dislike that and said that from the start we should ideally IMHO reject that and go with sensible policies instead. Give as much flexibility and care as we can, but don't violate safeguarding where it matters.
If someone wants to be called "they" that is not a safeguarding concern. Anyone who objects to that is being silly, and anyone who objects on the grounds that its a plural word only is both categorically wrong and silly.
If someone wants to go into protected grounds, then that needs to be treated sensitively and sensibly, not a blanket policy.
Agree, but public toilets are not protected grounds.
And when it comes to other things, such as refuges, then there needs to be suitable accommodation for trans people as well. Trans people (and men) can need refuge 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!" ?
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?
I believe I have shown plenty of such concern in the past. I've also mentioned the high levels of violence in our society using the official stats, such as those below. There is far too much abuse and violence in our society, and it is sadly too often seen as 'acceptable'. And whilst the victims can be women and girls, men or boys, gay or straight; the perpetrators can also be women, girls, men, boys, gays or straight. It is a complex story.
The problem is the levels of violence in our country.
I don't see a male victim of abuse or violence to be any less worthy of sympathy than a female victim. The problem is not the victim; it's the people who perform violent and abusive acts, whoever they may be.
A male victim of abuse should be treated with sympathy and may need to go to a rape crisis centre or similar and get counselling and support. But that individual should not go to a crisis centre that specialises in giving support exclusively to women.
We have crisis centres that support people of one sex only, and those that support people of both sexes. The existence of the former does not prevent or remove the existence of the latter and vice-versa. For women who have been abused, a female-only safe space for counselling and support can be good for their mental health and those existing alongside others available to people of both sexes is not a slight against either male or trans victims of abuse or similar.
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.
The irony is that the disco 1 (identical running gear to a 200/300 tdi defender) came with a really neat two stage bottle jack under the bonnet, designed to lift directly under the axle. I've several which I've recovered from scrap discos I broke up to put the engines into series landrovers - being two stage, they are much more useful than most bottle jack's when working on old cars.
Yes, got one of those. Painted red. Has a useful bracket on top to fit an axle, rather than just a round top.
At PMQs Sunak said he's registered with an NHS GP. I wonder if he used his words carefully - 'registered' is not quite the same as using. I'd guess anybody who used exclusively private health services would still be wise to 'register' with an NHS GP, just in case.
Having said that, I couldn't really give a toss about his personal/private arrangements. All I know is he's spectacularly rich.
Quite a lot of private healthcare insurance requires you see a GP first.
Mind you, does Sunak bother with the insurance?
IRRC some private GPs are actually part of practices registered to the NHS - so they can mix and match
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.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
It should be, but it is fast becoming another weapon in the crossfire war between opposing sides. Something that is becoming more and more common these days.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
Yes the all or nothing nature of the internet and Twitter especially is a problem, hence why I dislike that and said that from the start we should ideally IMHO reject that and go with sensible policies instead. Give as much flexibility and care as we can, but don't violate safeguarding where it matters.
If someone wants to be called "they" that is not a safeguarding concern. Anyone who objects to that is being silly, and anyone who objects on the grounds that its a plural word only is both categorically wrong and silly.
If someone wants to go into protected grounds, then that needs to be treated sensitively and sensibly, not a blanket policy.
Agree, but public toilets are not protected grounds.
And when it comes to other things, such as refuges, then there needs to be suitable accommodation for trans people as well. Trans people (and men) can need refuge as well.
I said earlier, I don't especially care about public toilets. Though refuges/prisons/sports etc can be protected and that can be where safeguarding matters far more.
Yes there should be suitable accommodation for trans people in refuges, there should be suitable accommodation for men, and there should be suitable accommodation for women. These might not all be in the same place though. A women's-only refuge that only offers support for women, which excludes both men and trans individuals, is not a problem so long as suitable support exists for male and trans individuals elsewhere.
We have existed a long time with both female-only refuges, and male victims, and the male victims can't go to the female refuges. Its not ideal, but its messy and fits the safeguarding issues, the support needs to be offered elsewhere for males and there's no reason that can't apply to trans too.
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!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
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.
I suppose the next question is, can the country as a whole afford such care? Again I don't know. I know that other countries in Europe spend more on health care than the UK but I also know that there is much larger private provision of health care on the continent and that, generally, their systems seem to work better than ours. But I assume these same questions still arise and for all of us will only get worse as the population ages and the boundaries between health care and social care get more and more blurred.
Interesting bit of research uncovering one of the biological mechanisms associated with memory.
DNA G-quadruplex is a transcriptional control device that regulates memory https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.09.523337v1 The conformational state of DNA fine-tunes the transcriptional rate and abundance of RNA. Here we report that DNA G-quadruplex (G4-DNA) accumulates in neurons in an experience-dependent manner, and that this is required for the transient silencing and activation of genes that are critically involved in learning and memory. In addition, site-specific resolution of G4-DNA by dCas9-mediated deposition of the helicase DHX36 impairs fear extinction memory. Dynamic DNA structure states therefore represent a key molecular mechanism underlying memory consolidation.
Very interesting. G-quadruplexes (and specifically telomeres/telomerases) are very important in the unlimited replication of cancers. I wasted about three months synthesizing short DNA stretches that form quadruplexes before moving on to less challenging work...
Interesting bit of research uncovering one of the biological mechanisms associated with memory.
DNA G-quadruplex is a transcriptional control device that regulates memory https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.09.523337v1 The conformational state of DNA fine-tunes the transcriptional rate and abundance of RNA. Here we report that DNA G-quadruplex (G4-DNA) accumulates in neurons in an experience-dependent manner, and that this is required for the transient silencing and activation of genes that are critically involved in learning and memory. In addition, site-specific resolution of G4-DNA by dCas9-mediated deposition of the helicase DHX36 impairs fear extinction memory. Dynamic DNA structure states therefore represent a key molecular mechanism underlying memory consolidation.
Not going to win any Plain English awards that, is 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.
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 it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Look at the 'I am an abuser' section. This is good: I like the idea they want to help abusers get help. It's brilliant.
Except they say: "Programmes exist to help menchange their behaviour and increase the safety of women and children."
Which rather ignores the fact women can be abusers as well: and not just towards men. Sadly, there is same-sex abuse and violence as well.
I like what Refuge does, but that's really, really poor IMO. Others may differ...
Not only does same-sex abuse and violence exist, but roughly a third of domestic violence victims are men. Which leads to an inescapable conclusion about the perpetrators.
Interesting bit of research uncovering one of the biological mechanisms associated with memory.
DNA G-quadruplex is a transcriptional control device that regulates memory https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.09.523337v1 The conformational state of DNA fine-tunes the transcriptional rate and abundance of RNA. Here we report that DNA G-quadruplex (G4-DNA) accumulates in neurons in an experience-dependent manner, and that this is required for the transient silencing and activation of genes that are critically involved in learning and memory. In addition, site-specific resolution of G4-DNA by dCas9-mediated deposition of the helicase DHX36 impairs fear extinction memory. Dynamic DNA structure states therefore represent a key molecular mechanism underlying memory consolidation.
Not going to win any Plain English awards that, is it?
Nope, but then its technical language. I don't speak French that well but I do speak this stuff!
In short - you may think DNA is just a double helix - its not. The structure has that as a main motif, but many other forms are available. In order to be 'read' DNA unwinds. Quadruplexes for with four bases (rather than two in 'normal DNA') in a square arrangement. The management of how DNA winds and unwinds is by other molecules and in this case a specific one has been shown to affect memory formation (I assume in mice or rats).
Look at the 'I am an abuser' section. This is good: I like the idea they want to help abusers get help. It's brilliant.
Except they say: "Programmes exist to help menchange their behaviour and increase the safety of women and children."
Which rather ignores the fact women can be abusers as well: and not just towards men. Sadly, there is same-sex abuse and violence as well.
I like what Refuge does, but that's really, really poor IMO. Others may differ...
Not only does same-sex abuse and violence exist, but roughly a third of domestic violence victims are men. Which leads to an inescapable conclusion about the perpetrators.
I believe domestic abuse against men is thought to be significantly underreported. A couple of studies suggested it may be as common as abuse of women.
As it was indeed by Sunak, who had the whip removed from him, almost before we'd called for it.
I read earlier that Andrew Bridgen had said this and, not recognising his name, assumed he was some right-wing nutjob in the US. It's actually quite startling to discover that there are UK MPs with such a warped understanding of reality.
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.
I suppose the next question is, can the country as a whole afford such care? Again I don't know. I know that other countries in Europe spend more on health care than the UK but I also know that there is much larger private provision of health care on the continent and that, generally, their systems seem to work better than ours. But I assume these same questions still arise and for all of us will only get worse as the population ages and the boundaries between health care and social care get more and more blurred.
I don’t think there would be any appetite for the level of taxation that would be required, among the voters.
This is no-win for politicians. Most people have no qualms about going private if they can, but many will bash a politician who does so.
Interesting bit of research uncovering one of the biological mechanisms associated with memory.
DNA G-quadruplex is a transcriptional control device that regulates memory https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.09.523337v1 The conformational state of DNA fine-tunes the transcriptional rate and abundance of RNA. Here we report that DNA G-quadruplex (G4-DNA) accumulates in neurons in an experience-dependent manner, and that this is required for the transient silencing and activation of genes that are critically involved in learning and memory. In addition, site-specific resolution of G4-DNA by dCas9-mediated deposition of the helicase DHX36 impairs fear extinction memory. Dynamic DNA structure states therefore represent a key molecular mechanism underlying memory consolidation.
Not going to win any Plain English awards that, is it?
Nope, but then its technical language. I don't speak French that well but I do speak this stuff!
In short - you may think DNA is just a double helix - its not. The structure has that as a main motif, but many other forms are available. In order to be 'read' DNA unwinds. Quadruplexes for with four bases (rather than two in 'normal DNA') in a square arrangement. The management of how DNA winds and unwinds is by other molecules and in this case a specific one has been shown to affect memory formation (I assume in mice or rats).
Look at the 'I am an abuser' section. This is good: I like the idea they want to help abusers get help. It's brilliant.
Except they say: "Programmes exist to help menchange their behaviour and increase the safety of women and children."
Which rather ignores the fact women can be abusers as well: and not just towards men. Sadly, there is same-sex abuse and violence as well.
I like what Refuge does, but that's really, really poor IMO. Others may differ...
Not only does same-sex abuse and violence exist, but roughly a third of domestic violence victims are men. Which leads to an inescapable conclusion about the perpetrators.
I believe domestic abuse against men is thought to be significantly underreported. A couple of studies suggested it may be as common as abuse of women.
This was the highest reliable figure I can find, it comes ultimately from the ONS.
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!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"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!" Have you met anyone working class?
Look at the 'I am an abuser' section. This is good: I like the idea they want to help abusers get help. It's brilliant.
Except they say: "Programmes exist to help menchange their behaviour and increase the safety of women and children."
Which rather ignores the fact women can be abusers as well: and not just towards men. Sadly, there is same-sex abuse and violence as well.
I like what Refuge does, but that's really, really poor IMO. Others may differ...
Not only does same-sex abuse and violence exist, but roughly a third of domestic violence victims are men. Which leads to an inescapable conclusion about the perpetrators.
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 it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
TBF I think he's ok, but right now the Tories would need more than ok. They need a barnstormer, on top of his brief, all guns blazing, confident blond haired sex-machine working class made good leader.
TBF I think he's ok, but right now the Tories would need more than ok. They need a barnstormer, on top of his brief, all guns blazing, confident blond haired sex-machine working class made good leader.
Hang on - isn't that Starmer?
Ironically they need a man like Boris Johnson that isn't Boris Johnson. They all left under Boris Johnson
Look at the 'I am an abuser' section. This is good: I like the idea they want to help abusers get help. It's brilliant.
Except they say: "Programmes exist to help menchange their behaviour and increase the safety of women and children."
Which rather ignores the fact women can be abusers as well: and not just towards men. Sadly, there is same-sex abuse and violence as well.
I like what Refuge does, but that's really, really poor IMO. Others may differ...
Not only does same-sex abuse and violence exist, but roughly a third of domestic violence victims are men. Which leads to an inescapable conclusion about the perpetrators.
Please expand on that.
The vast majority of both men and women who are in relationships are in same-sex relationships, and consequently the proportion of perpetrators of DV who are women will be close to the proportion of victims who are men.
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.
I am not worried about people with hammers, but it is a approach that lends itself to being over-extended and misapplied.
Perhaps a more pertinent example would be the attitude of people to amateur photographers where even coppers have (often wrongly) banned them from photographing public spaces where they actually have every right to take pictures.
I assume we're still talking about safeguarding here?
I'm a man. Therefore, for reasons of safeguarding, I am excluded from certain spaces, roles and tasks. I'm certain that, as an individual, I do not pose a risk to women and girls, but I accept that, because I belong to the class of people labelled as men, that it is appropriate to exclude me from some situations on that basis.
The question then is, for the purposes of safeguarding, at what point does someone cease to be a member of the risk group - that is male?
Self-declaration seems to be a very weak constraint. After all, I have already self-declared as not being a personal risk to women and girls, but that is not sufficient. I don't think this is an easy question to answer, which means it will take a bit of debate to work out.
This doesn't seem unreasonable or anti-trans, but the logic of the "trans women are women" and if you disagree you're a transphobe position, is that there is no debate to be had. A person can self-declare as no longer male and that's the end of it.
The vast, vast majority of men are no risk to women. The vast majority of trans people are no threat either. Having met several dozen of them through a charity I was involved with, for most of them, their lives are a mess, everything is difficult and many of them live in fear on a day to day basis until they get help and support. All the ones I met wanted nothing more than to fade into obscurity.
If I exposed myself to others in a toilet or other female space, should being a woman save me from prosecution? Of course not - it is the behaviour not the person that matters.
Criminals will always break the law. It is a job requirement for them....
So your criticism is more for safeguarding rules as a whole, than how they apply to trans people in particular?
I've found safeguarding rules to be personally annoying, but I can see the rationale for them. So many people have abused being in positions of trust and responsibility that they appear to be unfortunately necessary 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.
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!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"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!" Have you met anyone working class?
All working class people work in coal mines, ‘ave flat ‘ats and spend all their spare money on beer and betting at the dog races
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!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
An egalitarian can have reducing inequality as a high priority without wishing to do away with political freedom and the mixed economy. And pls see my previous post (to Lost Password) about meritocracy and 'opportunity vs outcomes'. I'm not at all a 'liberal meritocrat' (yuck). That's not where I'm coming from. V disappointed not to have earned your respect after all this time. Ah well.
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 it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
I've tried selling various parts of my body, but have been advised that they're worthless.
Look at the 'I am an abuser' section. This is good: I like the idea they want to help abusers get help. It's brilliant.
Except they say: "Programmes exist to help menchange their behaviour and increase the safety of women and children."
Which rather ignores the fact women can be abusers as well: and not just towards men. Sadly, there is same-sex abuse and violence as well.
I like what Refuge does, but that's really, really poor IMO. Others may differ...
Not only does same-sex abuse and violence exist, but roughly a third of domestic violence victims are men. Which leads to an inescapable conclusion about the perpetrators.
Please expand on that.
The vast majority of both men and women who are in relationships are in same-sex relationships, and consequently the proportion of perpetrators of DV who are women will be close to the proportion of victims who are men.
I think you need to re-read that. "The vast majority of both men and women who are in relationships are in same-sex relationships" ?
Look at the 'I am an abuser' section. This is good: I like the idea they want to help abusers get help. It's brilliant.
Except they say: "Programmes exist to help menchange their behaviour and increase the safety of women and children."
Which rather ignores the fact women can be abusers as well: and not just towards men. Sadly, there is same-sex abuse and violence as well.
I like what Refuge does, but that's really, really poor IMO. Others may differ...
Not only does same-sex abuse and violence exist, but roughly a third of domestic violence victims are men. Which leads to an inescapable conclusion about the perpetrators.
Please expand on that.
The vast majority of both men and women who are in relationships are in same-sex relationships, and consequently the proportion of perpetrators of DV who are women will be close to the proportion of victims who are men.
I think you need to re-read that. "The vast majority of both men and women who are in relationships are in same-sex relationships" ?
Minority. Obviously. Brain freeze...
Also the unspoken assumption that DV prevalence in same sex-relationships isn't significantly different than in opposite-sex relationships, but I think it wouldn't move the needle much even if it were 100%, which it obviously isn't...
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.
I suppose the next question is, can the country as a whole afford such care? Again I don't know. I know that other countries in Europe spend more on health care than the UK but I also know that there is much larger private provision of health care on the continent and that, generally, their systems seem to work better than ours. But I assume these same questions still arise and for all of us will only get worse as the population ages and the boundaries between health care and social care get more and more blurred.
We can afford to spend more - it's just a question of whether we want to. As you say other countries spend more in absolute terms and relative to GDP so it's obviously possible.
I would like to see and would happily pay higher taxes/see lower govt spending in other areas for this. In many areas underspending is a false economy because the costs come back to hit you later on.
I think it should be possible to grow the economy and improve system efficiency such that the pressures of an ageing population are counterbalanced and the overall standard of care remains the same or improves slightly if we prioritize healthcare sufficiently.
I do not think the public will tolerate a declining health service and I think that is a major reason why the Tories will not win the next election.
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 it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
I've tried selling various parts of my body, but have been advised that they're worthless.
Selling bits of your body would be foolish.
You’d create an immediate tax liability.
You should really construct some Collateralised Body Part Obligations and start trading them OTC. By structuring the physical delivery in an offshore location, you could reduce the tax liability, potentially, to zero.
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 it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
Because paid for donations opens up all sorts of possibilities for abuse (eg: manipulating parents manipulating an 18 year old offspring to sell a kidney to avoid the parents losing their home, or to fund university/experimental medical care/whatever for a younger sibling). Directed donations, precisely because there is no money involved, do not carry anywhere near the same level of risk.
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 it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
I've tried selling various parts of my body, but have been advised that they're worthless.
My dad was in the demolition and building trade (once having done the former to a building he had done the latter to decades earlier). When I was 15 I had an operation where they put metal into my ankle. When I woke up, he said to me: "Well son, you're worth something to me now. When you die I can scrap 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!" ?
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.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
It should be, but it is fast becoming another weapon in the crossfire war between opposing sides. Something that is becoming more and more common these days.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
Yes the all or nothing nature of the internet and Twitter especially is a problem, hence why I dislike that and said that from the start we should ideally IMHO reject that and go with sensible policies instead. Give as much flexibility and care as we can, but don't violate safeguarding where it matters.
If someone wants to be called "they" that is not a safeguarding concern. Anyone who objects to that is being silly, and anyone who objects on the grounds that its a plural word only is both categorically wrong and silly.
If someone wants to go into protected grounds, then that needs to be treated sensitively and sensibly, not a blanket policy.
Agree, but public toilets are not protected grounds.
And when it comes to other things, such as refuges, then there needs to be suitable accommodation for trans people as well. Trans people (and men) can need refuge as well.
I said earlier, I don't especially care about public toilets. Though refuges/prisons/sports etc can be protected and that can be where safeguarding matters far more.
Yes there should be suitable accommodation for trans people in refuges, there should be suitable accommodation for men, and there should be suitable accommodation for women. These might not all be in the same place though. A women's-only refuge that only offers support for women, which excludes both men and trans individuals, is not a problem so long as suitable support exists for male and trans individuals elsewhere.
We have existed a long time with both female-only refuges, and male victims, and the male victims can't go to the female refuges. Its not ideal, but its messy and fits the safeguarding issues, the support needs to be offered elsewhere for males and there's no reason that can't apply to trans too.
The main problem with public toilets is that most of them have been shut and the ones that haven't are filthy. That's a far bigger problem than anything trans related and a small example of how these hysterical culture war shouting matches crowd out discussion of more substantive issues.
"independent" healthcare, WTF just say private you lightweight
Healthcare that is not a burden on the NHS.
The NHS needs as many people going somewhere else as it can get.
In Australia in 1997 one of the first things the incoming Liberal government did was to introduce tax breaks for private healthcare/insurance as anyone doing that would ease the pressure on Medicare [their NHS].
Yep, but right now HMRC tax is as a benefit-in-kind if provided by an employer. Reversing this BIK treatment, will encourage more people out of the NHS, and encourage more private investment in healthcare provision generally.
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!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"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!" Have you met anyone working class?
All working class people work in coal mines, ‘ave flat ‘ats and spend all their spare money on beer and betting at the dog races
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.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
It should be, but it is fast becoming another weapon in the crossfire war between opposing sides. Something that is becoming more and more common these days.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
Yes the all or nothing nature of the internet and Twitter especially is a problem, hence why I dislike that and said that from the start we should ideally IMHO reject that and go with sensible policies instead. Give as much flexibility and care as we can, but don't violate safeguarding where it matters.
If someone wants to be called "they" that is not a safeguarding concern. Anyone who objects to that is being silly, and anyone who objects on the grounds that its a plural word only is both categorically wrong and silly.
If someone wants to go into protected grounds, then that needs to be treated sensitively and sensibly, not a blanket policy.
Agree, but public toilets are not protected grounds.
And when it comes to other things, such as refuges, then there needs to be suitable accommodation for trans people as well. Trans people (and men) can need refuge as well.
I said earlier, I don't especially care about public toilets. Though refuges/prisons/sports etc can be protected and that can be where safeguarding matters far more.
Yes there should be suitable accommodation for trans people in refuges, there should be suitable accommodation for men, and there should be suitable accommodation for women. These might not all be in the same place though. A women's-only refuge that only offers support for women, which excludes both men and trans individuals, is not a problem so long as suitable support exists for male and trans individuals elsewhere.
We have existed a long time with both female-only refuges, and male victims, and the male victims can't go to the female refuges. Its not ideal, but its messy and fits the safeguarding issues, the support needs to be offered elsewhere for males and there's no reason that can't apply to trans too.
The main problem with public toilets is that most of them have been shut and the ones that haven't are filthy. That's a far bigger problem than anything trans related and a small example of how these hysterical culture war shouting matches crowd out discussion of more substantive issues.
I now take raising the issue of public toilets as a warning sign of possible bad faith in these sorts of discussions. It's a complete red herring compared to more serious issues surrounding prisons, hospitals, school trips, good manners, respect, privacy, etc.
"independent" healthcare, WTF just say private you lightweight
Healthcare that is not a burden on the NHS.
The NHS needs as many people going somewhere else as it can get.
In Australia in 1997 one of the first things the incoming Liberal government did was to introduce tax breaks for private healthcare/insurance as anyone doing that would ease the pressure on Medicare [their NHS].
Yep, but right now HMRC tax is as a benefit-in-kind if provided by an employer. Reversing this BIK treatment, will encourage more people out of the NHS, and encourage more private investment in healthcare provision generally.
Sure but it's a stick the left will use to beat the Govt with. The hypocrisy of those working in the NHS and saying how much they love it whilst coming back to do extra shifts at huge pay rates via Agencies is costing the NHS billions.
Comments
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
He lost to Liz Truss.
Have a feeling that won't be me, come the time.
So I don't want Communism for education and I am in favour of some freedom in education. I simply made the point that education is a human right. Owning a posh car is not. They are very different.
As you well know I am far more in favour of free enterprise and a liberal economy than you. However health and education are very different to most freedoms and we should ensure all get a fair crack of the whip regardless of wealth.
This is why the idea that the Tories will shave a win seems bizarre.
The NHS needs as many people going somewhere else as it can get.
Perhaps a more pertinent example would be the attitude of people to amateur photographers where even coppers have (often wrongly) banned them from photographing public spaces where they actually have every right to take pictures.
We don't have private school parents paying taxes for parents at the local comp to buy a Ferrari but we do allow private school parents to pay for their children to attend that private school (which also normally will fund bursaries for bright pupils of lesser means anyway)
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
The situation makes up for the boring characters and the absence of policy difference at a philosophical level.
Oh, Rishi Sunak
You are quite useless
In every way.
You stay so healthy
Because you're wealthy
So for private
GPs
You can pay.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64236047
Sounds like the sort of thing that could take days to get back to normal, even if the direct fix is easy.
This what Andrew Tate sees when looking at his reflection
When in fact the reality is
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64236687
Using the holocaust comparison like that seats the author in the “Bat shit insane, and nasty with it” section, without having to waste more time on it, reading his shit.
Bit like people tattooing swastikas on their foreheads. I agree with the chap in Inglorious Bastards - much better to have people like that visibly labelled.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
I'm a man. Therefore, for reasons of safeguarding, I am excluded from certain spaces, roles and tasks. I'm certain that, as an individual, I do not pose a risk to women and girls, but I accept that, because I belong to the class of people labelled as men, that it is appropriate to exclude me from some situations on that basis.
The question then is, for the purposes of safeguarding, at what point does someone cease to be a member of the risk group - that is male?
Self-declaration seems to be a very weak constraint. After all, I have already self-declared as not being a personal risk to women and girls, but that is not sufficient. I don't think this is an easy question to answer, which means it will take a bit of debate to work out.
This doesn't seem unreasonable or anti-trans, but the logic of the "trans women are women" and if you disagree you're a transphobe position, is that there is no debate to be had. A person can self-declare as no longer male and that's the end of it.
As for Steve, ah ok, I'll consign to the long list of romantic urban myths about macho heroes. Second thoughts no I won't! - I want to believe this one!
Having said that, I couldn't really give a toss about his personal/private arrangements. All I know is he's spectacularly rich.
The problem is the levels of violence in our country.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2022#:~:text=2.,1.5 million incidents of violence.
When it comes to abuse, men are victims about a quarter or a third of the time (see below)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2022
I don't see a male victim of abuse or violence to be any less worthy of sympathy than a female victim. The problem is not the victim; it's the people who perform violent and abusive acts, whoever they may be.
The funnest thing was changing the wheel on a JCB 3CX. Don't bother with a jack; put the backactor on the ground and lift the wheels using that. For front wheels, use the front bucket in the same way.
If I exposed myself to others in a toilet or other female space, should being a woman save me from prosecution? Of course not - it is the behaviour not the person that matters.
Criminals will always break the law. It is a job requirement for them....
He’s such a twat is that he’s made Simon Clarke say the right thing for a change.
If someone wants to be called "they" that is not a safeguarding concern. Anyone who objects to that is being silly, and anyone who objects on the grounds that its a plural word only is both categorically wrong and silly.
If someone wants to go into protected grounds, then that needs to be treated sensitively and sensibly, not a blanket policy.
But, anyway, I take it from your analogy you are not happy with it. So we have established the absolutely critical point that ostensibly pro-trans, ill thought out legislation can produce insane and horrible results. Major step forward.
"Andrew Bridgen
@ABridgen
As one consultant cardiologist said to me this is the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust"
https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1613094003611688961
DNA G-quadruplex is a transcriptional control device that regulates memory
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.09.523337v1
The conformational state of DNA fine-tunes the transcriptional rate and abundance of RNA. Here we report that DNA G-quadruplex (G4-DNA) accumulates in neurons in an experience-dependent manner, and that this is required for the transient silencing and activation of genes that are critically involved in learning and memory. In addition, site-specific resolution of G4-DNA by dCas9-mediated deposition of the helicase DHX36 impairs fear extinction memory. Dynamic DNA structure states therefore represent a key molecular mechanism underlying memory consolidation.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
And when it comes to other things, such as refuges, then there needs to be suitable accommodation for trans people as well. Trans people (and men) can need refuge as well.
We have crisis centres that support people of one sex only, and those that support people of both sexes. The existence of the former does not prevent or remove the existence of the latter and vice-versa. For women who have been abused, a female-only safe space for counselling and support can be good for their mental health and those existing alongside others available to people of both sexes is not a slight against either male or trans victims of abuse or similar.
Mind you, does Sunak bother with the insurance?
IRRC some private GPs are actually part of practices registered to the NHS - so they can mix and match
https://refuge.org.uk/i-need-help-now/other-support-services/support-for-men/
See anything wrong?
Look at the 'I am an abuser' section. This is good: I like the idea they want to help abusers get help. It's brilliant.
Except they say: "Programmes exist to help menchange their behaviour and increase the safety of women and children."
Which rather ignores the fact women can be abusers as well: and not just towards men. Sadly, there is same-sex abuse and violence as well.
I like what Refuge does, but that's really, really poor IMO. Others may differ...
Yes there should be suitable accommodation for trans people in refuges, there should be suitable accommodation for men, and there should be suitable accommodation for women. These might not all be in the same place though. A women's-only refuge that only offers support for women, which excludes both men and trans individuals, is not a problem so long as suitable support exists for male and trans individuals elsewhere.
We have existed a long time with both female-only refuges, and male victims, and the male victims can't go to the female refuges. Its not ideal, but its messy and fits the safeguarding issues, the support needs to be offered elsewhere for males and there's no reason that can't apply to trans too.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4272573#Comment_4272573
As it was indeed by Sunak, who had the whip removed from him, almost before we'd called for it.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
I’ve seen a comment underneath the Bridgen tweet.
Condemning him because the holocaust is a hoax just like the scamemic.
In short - you may think DNA is just a double helix - its not. The structure has that as a main motif, but many other forms are available. In order to be 'read' DNA unwinds. Quadruplexes for with four bases (rather than two in 'normal DNA') in a square arrangement. The management of how DNA winds and unwinds is by other molecules and in this case a specific one has been shown to affect memory formation (I assume in mice or rats).
This is no-win for politicians. Most people have no qualms about going private if they can, but many will bash a politician who does so.
Police reports are obviously much lower.
"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!" Have you met anyone working class?
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
TBF I think he's ok, but right now the Tories would need more than ok. They need a barnstormer, on top of his brief, all guns blazing,
confident blond haired sex-machineworking class made good leader.Hang on - isn't that Starmer?
I've found safeguarding rules to be personally annoying, but I can see the rationale for them. So many people have abused being in positions of trust and responsibility that they appear to be unfortunately necessary to me.
This is known.
Also the unspoken assumption that DV prevalence in same sex-relationships isn't significantly different than in opposite-sex relationships, but I think it wouldn't move the needle much even if it were 100%, which it obviously isn't...
I would like to see and would happily pay higher taxes/see lower govt spending in other areas for this. In many areas underspending is a false economy because the costs come back to hit you later on.
I think it should be possible to grow the economy and improve system efficiency such that the pressures of an ageing population are counterbalanced and the overall standard of care remains the same or improves slightly if we prioritize healthcare sufficiently.
I do not think the public will tolerate a declining health service and I think that is a major reason why the Tories will not win the next election.
You’d create an immediate tax liability.
You should really construct some Collateralised Body Part Obligations and start trading them OTC. By structuring the physical delivery in an offshore location, you could reduce the tax liability, potentially, to zero.
For some odd reason, I appreciated it.
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/six-reasons-why-7d606c87358f