Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
The Timothy Dalton narrated Dunkirk docudrama c.2003 was my favourite, I think.
It is not on iplayer but the John Mills version of Dunkirk is there for 19 days.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
The Timothy Dalton narrated Dunkirk docudrama c.2003 was my favourite, I think.
It is not on iplayer but the John Mills version of Dunkirk is there for 19 days.
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
Also, let's not forget that 71% of housewives in East Lancashire and 81% in Hertfordshire expressed an interest in the concept of exotic ice-creams. Only 8% in Hertfordshire and 14% in Lancashire expressed positive hostility, whilst 5% expressed latent hostility. In Hertfordshire, 96% of the 50% who formed 20% of consumer spending were in favour. 0.6% told us where we could put our exotic ice creams.
You are Reggie Perrin and I claim my free Sunshine Dessert.
Apologies, my reply is 11 minutes late. Train derailed by hippopotamus.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
People who live in big cities might not realise that it's still fairly unusual to carry a photo ID around with you in the rest of the country, unless you're going to an airport of ferry terminal. I've noticed that a lot of young people in big cities seem to have adopted the American custom of carrying a photo ID around with them. Maybe it's because you need one to do things these days, whereas 20 years ago you didn't.
In the last couple of years the number of bus passengers wearing lanyards with work, college and even secondary school IDs has rocketed.
And apparently Clarkson has been dumped by Amazon Prime.
He has stuffed himself big time, thought he was a smart arse but finds out he is just an arse.
Not sure that’s true. If you watch the first episode of The Grand Tour, there is a montage of his sacking and it leads into a joyous new era. I suspect the same will happen again. It’s not as if the BBC and Amazon are the only options.
It’s being reported that their contract will not be renewed when it expires in a couple of years’ time, much more to do with falling audiences, especially in the US, than any more recent ‘incidents’.
It is worth noting that the shine had rather come off Top Gear UK when they had their falling out.
I do wonder if Clarkson has managed to make this about "woke" rather than declining viewership.
Jeremy Clarkson is 62. He’ll be 64 when his contract expires. Very few TV stars go beyond their late 60s. Woke or non Woke, his TV career is near its end
He’ll be writing irascible and sometimes funny newspaper columns into his mid 70s, however
For the last couple of years, the Grand Tour three have all looked like old men, even Hammond.
Boris didn't know what he was doing and lied to cover that up?
It's not really news, is it?
He had no choice really if he wanted the deal. The EU had us over a barrel because we couldn't leave without an agreement.
That's not true, we could always have left without an agreement, and (I suspect) that while there would have been a degree of turmoil, the effects would have been pretty short lived.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
You probably live in a big city where nobody trusts anyone.
Ol’ Connor is not normally known to be SNP sympatico. What a masterclass of long term strategic planning from the Nats to engineer a confrontation with HMG over six years and then unite Holyrood on a constitutional issue to an unprecedented degree.
And apparently Clarkson has been dumped by Amazon Prime.
He has stuffed himself big time, thought he was a smart arse but finds out he is just an arse.
Not sure that’s true. If you watch the first episode of The Grand Tour, there is a montage of his sacking and it leads into a joyous new era. I suspect the same will happen again. It’s not as if the BBC and Amazon are the only options.
It’s being reported that their contract will not be renewed when it expires in a couple of years’ time, much more to do with falling audiences, especially in the US, than any more recent ‘incidents’.
It is worth noting that the shine had rather come off Top Gear UK when they had their falling out.
I do wonder if Clarkson has managed to make this about "woke" rather than declining viewership.
Jeremy Clarkson is 62. He’ll be 64 when his contract expires. Very few TV stars go beyond their late 60s. Woke or non Woke, his TV career is near its end
He’ll be writing irascible and sometimes funny newspaper columns into his mid 70s, however
For the last couple of years, the Grand Tour three have all looked like old men, even Hammond.
Yes they do look old now. Tho the most recent Grand Tour episode was brilliantly funny. They still got it
Conversion therapy (including for trans) ban back on once again. Bill to be introduced.
It’s going to be complicated:
The legislation must not, through a lack of clarity, harm the growing number of children and young adults experiencing gender related distress, through inadvertently criminalising or chilling legitimate conversations parents or clinicians may have with their children.
Is “affirmative care” (sic) “care” or “conversion therapy”?
Stonewall and their acolytes (including the ScotGov report on this) argue the former. Critics argue the latter, “transing the gay away”.
I think the Swedish approach of watchful waiting and no drugs for under 18s except in exceptional cases, and pushing neither transition nor status quo the best approach.
There also is no definition of therapist. It isn't a regulated profession.
I asked an actual psychiatrist about this - they are very concerned that there is no definition of where boundaries are. Apparently tons of people think they are trans relative to the number that are - they often have other, recognised sexual/body image issues. So they have to tell people they are probably not trans…
For that matter there is no real objective evidence of gender dysphoria, it is a subjective inner experience. People have it if they say they do, like many other aspects of sexuality.
Boris didn't know what he was doing and lied to cover that up?
It's not really news, is it?
He had no choice really if he wanted the deal. The EU had us over a barrel because we couldn't leave without an agreement.
That's not true, we could always have left without an agreement, and (I suspect) that while there would have been a degree of turmoil, the effects would have been pretty short lived.
It is debatable whether it was impossible practically, but it would certainly have been inconceivable politically. May and Hammond had made the decision not to spend money (it seemed a lot of money pre-Covid) on making No Deal preparations. That killed the negotiating positions of both May and Johnson.
How can I put this politely... oh I can't. She can fuck right off. Passive smoking is a health issue because people can't choose not to inhale (even Bill Clinton). People can choose not to eat cake. I choose not to eat cake every day in spite of it being in the house with my wife continually baking for one event or another. If that is all a food regulator has to worry about (I know it isn't) then we should abolish her position.
Boris didn't know what he was doing and lied to cover that up?
It's not really news, is it?
He had no choice really if he wanted the deal. The EU had us over a barrel because we couldn't leave without an agreement.
That's not true, we could always have left without an agreement, and (I suspect) that while there would have been a degree of turmoil, the effects would have been pretty short lived.
It is debatable whether it was impossible practically, but it would certainly have been inconceivable politically. May and Hammond had made the decision not to spend money (it seemed a lot of money pre-Covid) on making No Deal preparations. That killed the negotiating positions of both May and Johnson.
This was a slightly confusing post with all the talk of Top Gear and The Grand Tour going on.
And apparently Clarkson has been dumped by Amazon Prime.
He has stuffed himself big time, thought he was a smart arse but finds out he is just an arse.
Not sure that’s true. If you watch the first episode of The Grand Tour, there is a montage of his sacking and it leads into a joyous new era. I suspect the same will happen again. It’s not as if the BBC and Amazon are the only options.
It’s being reported that their contract will not be renewed when it expires in a couple of years’ time, much more to do with falling audiences, especially in the US, than any more recent ‘incidents’.
It is worth noting that the shine had rather come off Top Gear UK when they had their falling out.
I do wonder if Clarkson has managed to make this about "woke" rather than declining viewership.
Jeremy Clarkson is 62. He’ll be 64 when his contract expires. Very few TV stars go beyond their late 60s. Woke or non Woke, his TV career is near its end
He’ll be writing irascible and sometimes funny newspaper columns into his mid 70s, however
For the last couple of years, the Grand Tour three have all looked like old men, even Hammond.
Yes they do look old now. Tho the most recent Grand Tour episode was brilliantly funny. They still got it
Just to add: Clarkson looks about 70 he is so paunchy and jowly. May looks quite mad. But Hammond is ageing even worse - in ways - because he is clearly trying to fight it with hair dye etc
Unless you get it exactly right with a brilliant hair stylist (and maintain it impeccably) hair dye can actually make a man look OLDER (and weirder)
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
Also, let's not forget that 71% of housewives in East Lancashire and 81% in Hertfordshire expressed an interest in the concept of exotic ice-creams. Only 8% in Hertfordshire and 14% in Lancashire expressed positive hostility, whilst 5% expressed latent hostility. In Hertfordshire, 96% of the 50% who formed 20% of consumer spending were in favour. 0.6% told us where we could put our exotic ice creams.
You are Reggie Perrin and I claim my free Sunshine Dessert.
Apologies, my reply is 11 minutes late. Train derailed by hippopotamus.
I didn’t get where I am today by allowing hippopotamuses to delay my reply.
Ol’ Connor is not normally known to be SNP sympatico. What a masterclass of long term strategic planning from the Nats to engineer a confrontation with HMG over six years and then unite Holyrood on a constitutional issue to an unprecedented degree.
Did anybody partaking in this remarkable cross party denouncement vote against the bill?
Boris didn't know what he was doing and lied to cover that up?
It's not really news, is it?
He had no choice really if he wanted the deal. The EU had us over a barrel because we couldn't leave without an agreement.
That's not true, we could always have left without an agreement, and (I suspect) that while there would have been a degree of turmoil, the effects would have been pretty short lived.
The effects of BoZo's brilliant, oven-ready deal are still ongoing 6 years later.
No deal would have made the Trussterfuck look like relief
Boris didn't know what he was doing and lied to cover that up?
It's not really news, is it?
He had no choice really if he wanted the deal. The EU had us over a barrel because we couldn't leave without an agreement.
That's not true, we could always have left without an agreement, and (I suspect) that while there would have been a degree of turmoil, the effects would have been pretty short lived.
It is debatable whether it was impossible practically, but it would certainly have been inconceivable politically. May and Hammond had made the decision not to spend money (it seemed a lot of money pre-Covid) on making No Deal preparations. That killed the negotiating positions of both May and Johnson.
This was a slightly confusing post with all the talk of Top Gear and The Grand Tour going on.
How can I put this politely... oh I can't. She can fuck right off. Passive smoking is a health issue because people can't choose not to inhale (even Bill Clinton). People can choose not to eat cake. I choose not to eat cake every day in spite of it being in the house with my wife continually baking for one event or another. If that is all a food regulator has to worry about (I know it isn't) then we should abolish her position.
Seems like a remarkably stupid woman for someone heading up such an important agency.
Conversion therapy (including for trans) ban back on once again. Bill to be introduced.
It’s going to be complicated:
The legislation must not, through a lack of clarity, harm the growing number of children and young adults experiencing gender related distress, through inadvertently criminalising or chilling legitimate conversations parents or clinicians may have with their children.
Is “affirmative care” (sic) “care” or “conversion therapy”?
Stonewall and their acolytes (including the ScotGov report on this) argue the former. Critics argue the latter, “transing the gay away”.
I think the Swedish approach of watchful waiting and no drugs for under 18s except in exceptional cases, and pushing neither transition nor status quo the best approach.
There also is no definition of therapist. It isn't a regulated profession.
I asked an actual psychiatrist about this - they are very concerned that there is no definition of where boundaries are. Apparently tons of people think they are trans relative to the number that are - they often have other, recognised sexual/body image issues. So they have to tell people they are probably not trans…
For that matter there is no real objective evidence of gender dysphoria, it is a subjective inner experience. People have it if they say they do, like many other aspects of sexuality.
Quite. Even "actual psychiatrists" don't have access to some sort of objective truth.
Psychiatrists do corroborate from other aspects of behaviour, from family members etc, but ultimately only the patient experiences gender dysphoria. A number of patients also have gender misalignment but are not dysphoric. Indeed that is part of the argument for gender self ID analogous to homosexuality or promiscuity which also used to be regarded as mental illnesses. Why should people be required to be distressed in order to prove gender misalignment?
How can I put this politely... oh I can't. She can fuck right off. Passive smoking is a health issue because people can't choose not to inhale (even Bill Clinton). People can choose not to eat cake. I choose not to eat cake every day in spite of it being in the house with my wife continually baking for one event or another. If that is all a food regulator has to worry about (I know it isn't) then we should abolish her position.
Seems like a remarkably stupid woman for someone heading up such an important agency.
I can only envy you your lack of experience of government quangoes.
I would have said her stupidity was anything but remarkable for such an office holder.
How can I put this politely... oh I can't. She can fuck right off. Passive smoking is a health issue because people can't choose not to inhale (even Bill Clinton). People can choose not to eat cake. I choose not to eat cake every day in spite of it being in the house with my wife continually baking for one event or another. If that is all a food regulator has to worry about (I know it isn't) then we should abolish her position.
Seems like a remarkably stupid woman for someone heading up such an important agency.
I can only envy you your lack of experience of government quangoes.
I would have said her stupidity was anything but remarkable for such an office holder.
She makes quite a few valid points in the article. Well worth reading beyond the click bait headline.
CWU postal strikers also still affiliated to Labour
I'm no fan of strikes typically, but in the current circumstances 8% is less than inflation and less than what the Tories are giving their core voters via the Triple Lock. So even I find it hard to object to people rejecting below inflation, below benefits pay rises, why shouldn't they?
Why should people who work for a living get less than those who don't?
EDIT: And its 4% apparently? But even if the claim of 8% was true, its still negative in real terms and not what those who aren't working will be getting, so why should those who are working settle for less than those who aren't?
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
She overestimates the importance of what she calls the Northern Ireland "impasse".
If the Protestant bigots wanted to cause an impasse, they'd cause one, all right.
At the moment, they don't seem to be much bothered, really, by any active "Irish Sea" issues. For all the talk, even when Brexit was just a twinkle in Malcolm Pearson and Vladimir Putin's respective eyes, I used to get searched when crossing between GB and NI. I never got any hassle travelling between GB and ROI, or between NI and ROI.
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
It certainly helps a lot of my T2 diabetes patients, but is not the answer to the problem entirely.
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
I expect Pharma to make a fortune from selling it. Do not expect it on the NHS
She overestimates the importance of what she calls the Northern Ireland "impasse".
If the Protestant bigots wanted to cause an impasse, they'd cause one, all right.
At the moment, they don't seem to be much bothered, really, by any active "Irish Sea" issues. For all the talk, even when Brexit was just a twinkle in Malcolm Pearson and Vladimir Putin's respective eyes, I used to get searched when crossing between GB and NI. I never got any hassle travelling between GB and ROI, or between NI and ROI.
The searches were when you arrived in GB, not going the other way and they were only in England. The Scots never bothered.
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
I expect Pharma to make a fortune from selling it. Do not expect it on the NHS
I think it quite likely that NICE will support it, and therefore get NHS funding.
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
Boris didn't know what he was doing and lied to cover that up?
It's not really news, is it?
He had no choice really if he wanted the deal. The EU had us over a barrel because we couldn't leave without an agreement.
I'm sure I remember him saying otherwise, and people giving May tremendous amounts of crap for seemingly concluding the same thing. It's almost as though he just wanted to oust her (especially as he voted for her deal in the end).
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
I expect Pharma to make a fortune from selling it. Do not expect it on the NHS
I think it quite likely that NICE will support it, and therefore get NHS funding.
Can they afford it? Everyone and her dog will want it.
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
That really would be a game-changer.
(Not holding my breath tbh)
It works by a number of actions, but the nausea seems part of the appetite suppression. There are other reasons overeat besides appetite, such as boredom, psychological issues, upbringing, family culture, even simply for pleasure.
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
I expect Pharma to make a fortune from selling it. Do not expect it on the NHS
I think it quite likely that NICE will support it, and therefore get NHS funding.
Can they afford it? Everyone and her dog will want it.
Part will be the cost benefit analysis as there will be savings in terms of other health benefits from weight loss, but the guidance is also likely to only apply for BMI over 35, requires Specialist prescription and for a maximum of 2 years.
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
People who live in big cities might not realise that it's still fairly unusual to carry a photo ID around with you in the rest of the country, unless you're going to an airport of ferry terminal. I've noticed that a lot of young people in big cities seem to have adopted the American custom of carrying a photo ID around with them. Maybe it's because you need one to do things these days, whereas 20 years ago you didn't.
In the last couple of years the number of bus passengers wearing lanyards with work, college and even secondary school IDs has rocketed.
Conversion therapy (including for trans) ban back on once again. Bill to be introduced.
It’s going to be complicated:
The legislation must not, through a lack of clarity, harm the growing number of children and young adults experiencing gender related distress, through inadvertently criminalising or chilling legitimate conversations parents or clinicians may have with their children.
Is “affirmative care” (sic) “care” or “conversion therapy”?
Stonewall and their acolytes (including the ScotGov report on this) argue the former. Critics argue the latter, “transing the gay away”.
I think the Swedish approach of watchful waiting and no drugs for under 18s except in exceptional cases, and pushing neither transition nor status quo the best approach.
There also is no definition of therapist. It isn't a regulated profession.
I asked an actual psychiatrist about this - they are very concerned that there is no definition of where boundaries are. Apparently tons of people think they are trans relative to the number that are - they often have other, recognised sexual/body image issues. So they have to tell people they are probably not trans…
For that matter there is no real objective evidence of gender dysphoria, it is a subjective inner experience. People have it if they say they do, like many other aspects of sexuality.
How can I put this politely... oh I can't. She can fuck right off. Passive smoking is a health issue because people can't choose not to inhale (even Bill Clinton). People can choose not to eat cake. I choose not to eat cake every day in spite of it being in the house with my wife continually baking for one event or another. If that is all a food regulator has to worry about (I know it isn't) then we should abolish her position.
Seems like a remarkably stupid woman for someone heading up such an important agency.
I can only envy you your lack of experience of government quangoes.
I would have said her stupidity was anything but remarkable for such an office holder.
She makes quite a few valid points in the article. Well worth reading beyond the click bait headline.
I have, and can't say I'm impressed with it or its logic.
While saying the two issues were not identical, Jebb argued that passive smoking inflicted harm on others “and exactly the same is true of food”.
She's right it the issues are not identical. So why does she then immediately argue the method of harm infliction is 'exactly' the same.
It just isn't. The comparison to smoking is harmful to the argument about efforts to provide supportive environments for more healthy choices, because people can plainly see the two situations are not the same - choosing to enter a smoking pub is not like people felt compelled to put a cigarette in their mouth, yet with office cake you have to personally take more steps.
Junk food advertising, even office cake culture, these things can be argued reasonably well, but if your argument tries to equate lacking the will to say no to a piece of cake with passive absorption of smoke, it's just nonsense. We can argue the making it more socially unacceptable point, which she does, but if that is done in a way which makes people seem like they have no self control at all, it won't work.
The rest of it seems pretty bog standard stuff, so not sure why the antipathy toward a click bait headline that actually seems pretty in tone with the article.
“Shortfall of 330,000 workers in UK due to Brexit, say thinktanks Immigration from non-EU countries failed to take up slack after freedom of movement ended”
The kicker, buried under the lede:
“The research, entitled Early Impacts of the Post-Brexit Immigration System in the UK Labour Market, was produced by Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics at King’s College London and a senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, and John Springford, deputy director of the CER. “Overall, the new system is working broadly as Leave advocates promised,” they concluded.”
A tale of two speeches (although in fairness, one of them is more of an incoherent rant):
This is outstanding from Miriam Cates MP in the GRR (Scotland) debate just now. Watch to the end to see some of the appalling behaviour every female MP who has spoken about women's rights has been subjected to today. Disgraceful misogyny @HouseofCommons
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
It certainly helps a lot of my T2 diabetes patients, but is not the answer to the problem entirely.
Quite a few don't like feeling nauseous by it.
If your patients don’t want to feel nauseous, they should stop watching Clarkson.
Seems utterly unreasonable that ID which can and does enable you to waltz into a school or hospital or nuclear facility is totally unacceptable. Whilst that which can get you a free bus journey is. But that's Tories for you Freedom for people like me. Endless bureaucracy for people not like me
“Shortfall of 330,000 workers in UK due to Brexit, say thinktanks Immigration from non-EU countries failed to take up slack after freedom of movement ended”
The kicker, buried under the lede:
“The research, entitled Early Impacts of the Post-Brexit Immigration System in the UK Labour Market, was produced by Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics at King’s College London and a senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, and John Springford, deputy director of the CER. “Overall, the new system is working broadly as Leave advocates promised,” they concluded.”
Yes, though Brexiteers don't seem very keen on addressing Labour shortages by pay rises for the workers. See the header for details.
Ol’ Connor is not normally known to be SNP sympatico. What a masterclass of long term strategic planning from the Nats to engineer a confrontation with HMG over six years and then unite Holyrood on a constitutional issue to an unprecedented degree.
Did anybody partaking in this remarkable cross party denouncement vote against the bill?
A reasonable question, although I don't think it would be a tremendous surprise if some in fact did vote against it - people can often end up unifying with opponents on the question of their own powers and that of the body to which they belong. Just see any local council where, regardless of party, on the right issue you will find support for complaining about central government's atttiude to local government.
The UK gov action may be lawful, but it is also definitely unprecedented, so it seems probable at least some opponents of the bill don't like this reaction.
“Shortfall of 330,000 workers in UK due to Brexit, say thinktanks Immigration from non-EU countries failed to take up slack after freedom of movement ended”
The kicker, buried under the lede:
“The research, entitled Early Impacts of the Post-Brexit Immigration System in the UK Labour Market, was produced by Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics at King’s College London and a senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, and John Springford, deputy director of the CER. “Overall, the new system is working broadly as Leave advocates promised,” they concluded.”
Yes, though Brexiteers don't seem very keen on addressing Labour shortages by pay rises for the workers. See the header for details.
I always thought the Brexiteers wanted to return to 1957, but I think I was out by 100 years. They would prefer us to slave away like 1857...
Ol’ Connor is not normally known to be SNP sympatico. What a masterclass of long term strategic planning from the Nats to engineer a confrontation with HMG over six years and then unite Holyrood on a constitutional issue to an unprecedented degree.
Did anybody partaking in this remarkable cross party denouncement vote against the bill?
Dunno, you'd probably better ask Connor who's paid to measure and comment on this 'remarkable cross party denouncement'. In any case I guess folk tend to be less interested in the views of a losing minority, except for those who desire an outside authority help the losers out.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
You probably live in a big city where nobody trusts anyone.
What a ridiculous comment even if you did not know, or remember, that turbotubbs does not live in a big city, as he has since pointed out.
The idea people not in a big city have some grander level of trust is just bonkers. Do you think everywhere not London or Birmingham is a medieval hamlet sized place where everyone knows one another or something?
The furious reaction of men like Lloyd Russell-Moyle to any woman who, like Miriam Cates, dares to stand up for women's legal rights demonstrates neatly just why women need legal rights. He should have been told to leave the Chamber. I hope a formal apology is forthcoming 1/2
This is the jerk who said, when @jk_rowling said her experience of rape & domestic violence meant she valued single-sex spaces, that she was weaponising her trauma to hurt trans people. He was forced to apologise then. He's a disgrace to the Labour Party
“Shortfall of 330,000 workers in UK due to Brexit, say thinktanks Immigration from non-EU countries failed to take up slack after freedom of movement ended”
The kicker, buried under the lede:
“The research, entitled Early Impacts of the Post-Brexit Immigration System in the UK Labour Market, was produced by Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics at King’s College London and a senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, and John Springford, deputy director of the CER. “Overall, the new system is working broadly as Leave advocates promised,” they concluded.”
Leave advocates generally promised much reduced immigration, and nobody promised labour shortages, so no it doesn’t really work as promised.
(By the way Springford is the guy behind the much rubbished on here “counter UK” model which suggests Brexit has cost 5.5% of GDP and counting).
How can I put this politely... oh I can't. She can fuck right off. Passive smoking is a health issue because people can't choose not to inhale (even Bill Clinton). People can choose not to eat cake. I choose not to eat cake every day in spite of it being in the house with my wife continually baking for one event or another. If that is all a food regulator has to worry about (I know it isn't) then we should abolish her position.
Seems like a remarkably stupid woman for someone heading up such an important agency.
I can only envy you your lack of experience of government quangoes.
I would have said her stupidity was anything but remarkable for such an office holder.
She makes quite a few valid points in the article. Well worth reading beyond the click bait headline.
I have, and can't say I'm impressed with it or its logic.
While saying the two issues were not identical, Jebb argued that passive smoking inflicted harm on others “and exactly the same is true of food”.
She's right it the issues are not identical. So why does she then immediately argue the method of harm infliction is 'exactly' the same.
It just isn't. The comparison to smoking is harmful to the argument about efforts to provide supportive environments for more healthy choices, because people can plainly see the two situations are not the same - choosing to enter a smoking pub is not like people felt compelled to put a cigarette in their mouth, yet with office cake you have to personally take more steps.
Junk food advertising, even office cake culture, these things can be argued reasonably well, but if your argument tries to equate lacking the will to say no to a piece of cake with passive absorption of smoke, it's just nonsense. We can argue the making it more socially unacceptable point, which she does, but if that is done in a way which makes people seem like they have no self control at all, it won't work.
The rest of it seems pretty bog standard stuff, so not sure why the antipathy toward a click bait headline that actually seems pretty in tone with the article.
Is she really suggesting that you can passively ingest cake against your will? That there is no way to avoid passive caking like the problems caused by passive smoking?
First Minister seems a tad confused here. Says she didn’t know there were concerns about impact of GRR on Equality Act. So she didn’t notice the submissions made by @UNSRVAW@EHRC@ForWomenScot@mbmpolicy et al. Or the protests. Or @jk_rowling thoughtful interventions. Right.
Boris didn't know what he was doing and lied to cover that up?
It's not really news, is it?
He had no choice really if he wanted the deal. The EU had us over a barrel because we couldn't leave without an agreement.
He lied to save us all?
He broke his promise because it was expedient, but the reason that he was forced to break his promise is that he had no ability to walk away from the negotiations, because the EU knew that no deal could not happen.
How can I put this politely... oh I can't. She can fuck right off. Passive smoking is a health issue because people can't choose not to inhale (even Bill Clinton). People can choose not to eat cake. I choose not to eat cake every day in spite of it being in the house with my wife continually baking for one event or another. If that is all a food regulator has to worry about (I know it isn't) then we should abolish her position.
Seems like a remarkably stupid woman for someone heading up such an important agency.
I can only envy you your lack of experience of government quangoes.
I would have said her stupidity was anything but remarkable for such an office holder.
She makes quite a few valid points in the article. Well worth reading beyond the click bait headline.
I have, and can't say I'm impressed with it or its logic.
While saying the two issues were not identical, Jebb argued that passive smoking inflicted harm on others “and exactly the same is true of food”.
She's right it the issues are not identical. So why does she then immediately argue the method of harm infliction is 'exactly' the same.
It just isn't. The comparison to smoking is harmful to the argument about efforts to provide supportive environments for more healthy choices, because people can plainly see the two situations are not the same - choosing to enter a smoking pub is not like people felt compelled to put a cigarette in their mouth, yet with office cake you have to personally take more steps.
Junk food advertising, even office cake culture, these things can be argued reasonably well, but if your argument tries to equate lacking the will to say no to a piece of cake with passive absorption of smoke, it's just nonsense. We can argue the making it more socially unacceptable point, which she does, but if that is done in a way which makes people seem like they have no self control at all, it won't work.
The rest of it seems pretty bog standard stuff, so not sure why the antipathy toward a click bait headline that actually seems pretty in tone with the article.
Is she really suggesting that you can passively ingest cake against your will? That there is no way to avoid passive caking like the problems caused by passive smoking?
April 1st has arrived early this year...
Not that precise suggestion of course, but since she is arguing the harm inflicted is exactly the same (not similar, exactly), so she might as well given that's as logical as what she did say.
As far as I can tell, the reason we are getting fatter is very simply that we eat more processed calorie dense food than we did before.
It’s not sugar, it’s not exercise, it’s not driving, it’s not carbs, it’s not reduced willpower, its not women going to work, it’s not seed oils, etc etc, although some or all might play a role.
It’s processed food, according to Occam’s Razor.
Very simply we invented things like “popcorn chicken” and we eat more and more of it, because it tastes bloody good. Britain is actually a world leader (think M&S readymeals) at such things.
The furious reaction of men like Lloyd Russell-Moyle to any woman who, like Miriam Cates, dares to stand up for women's legal rights demonstrates neatly just why women need legal rights. He should have been told to leave the Chamber. I hope a formal apology is forthcoming 1/2
This is the jerk who said, when @jk_rowling said her experience of rape & domestic violence meant she valued single-sex spaces, that she was weaponising her trauma to hurt trans people. He was forced to apologise then. He's a disgrace to the Labour Party
First Minister seems a tad confused here. Says she didn’t know there were concerns about impact of GRR on Equality Act. So she didn’t notice the submissions made by @UNSRVAW@EHRC@ForWomenScot@mbmpolicy et al. Or the protests. Or @jk_rowling thoughtful interventions. Right.
Seems like an odd slip to make. Surely the proponents must have addressed concerns at some point in this whole process, even if it was to say the concerns were not merited?
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
I expect Pharma to make a fortune from selling it. Do not expect it on the NHS
I think it quite likely that NICE will support it, and therefore get NHS funding.
Can they afford it? Everyone and her dog will want it.
I'm guessing it would have to be privates-in-a-vice eye wateringly expensive to not come out as a net-saving since the annual cost of treating obesity related illness seems to be nearly £6 billion. Obviously such a treatment wouldn't actually cure all obesity related illnesses but it makes sense that it could save the NHS a decent sum. How big is for NICE to determine, I guess?
“Shortfall of 330,000 workers in UK due to Brexit, say thinktanks Immigration from non-EU countries failed to take up slack after freedom of movement ended”
The kicker, buried under the lede:
“The research, entitled Early Impacts of the Post-Brexit Immigration System in the UK Labour Market, was produced by Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics at King’s College London and a senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, and John Springford, deputy director of the CER. “Overall, the new system is working broadly as Leave advocates promised,” they concluded.”
Yes, though Brexiteers don't seem very keen on addressing Labour shortages by pay rises for the workers. See the header for details.
I always thought the Brexiteers wanted to return to 1957, but I think I was out by 100 years. They would prefer us to slave away like 1857...
1957 is a bit too late. Post Suez. In fact 1857 is a bit too late. Slavery had been abolished in UK and its possessions for about a score of years (if one regards the 'apprenticeship' system as thinly disguised slavery).
Though the constant nostalgic hankering for capital punishment for such treasonable things as throwing an egg (often urged by the same persons who discuss the relative sexual attractions of specific female royals) does tend to obscure the question of what used to be done with trade unions. 1834 was when the Tolpuddle Martyrs got a free one way ticket to New South Wales or Botany Bay or whatever.
“Shortfall of 330,000 workers in UK due to Brexit, say thinktanks Immigration from non-EU countries failed to take up slack after freedom of movement ended”
The kicker, buried under the lede:
“The research, entitled Early Impacts of the Post-Brexit Immigration System in the UK Labour Market, was produced by Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics at King’s College London and a senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, and John Springford, deputy director of the CER. “Overall, the new system is working broadly as Leave advocates promised,” they concluded.”
Leave advocates generally promised much reduced immigration, and nobody promised labour shortages, so no it doesn’t really work as promised.
(By the way Springford is the guy behind the much rubbished on here “counter UK” model which suggests Brexit has cost 5.5% of GDP and counting).
Didn't the Leave advocates promise fewer foreigners = pay increases for the locals? So it's still less obvious how it was supposed to work.
I'm also sure some Remainers forecast labour shortages - especially at the higher end, e.g. medicine, academia, etc.
As far as I can tell, the reason we are getting fatter is very simply that we eat more processed calorie dense food than we did before.
It’s not sugar, it’s not exercise, it’s not driving, it’s not carbs, it’s not reduced willpower, its not women going to work, it’s not seed oils, etc etc, although some or all might play a role.
It’s processed food, according to Occam’s Razor.
Very simply we invented things like “popcorn chicken” and we eat more and more of it, because it tastes bloody good. Britain is actually a world leader (think M&S readymeals) at such things.
Processed foods is one of the reasons in that set; I don't think it's the one reason to rule them all. And I don't think caloric density is the issue - some of the most revered life-giving foods are the most calorie dense.
It's also interesting to note that some 'food processing' methods developed over centuries because it is good for us, making the nutrients in the food more bioavalable, and getting rid of nasties. Tomatoes are better in their post-cooked form. Yoghurt is arguably better for you than milk. Carrots should be consumed with butter. Grains are better soaked, or sprouted.
At least 3 women Labour MPs spoke out in favour of the government's decision today to block the Scottish government's law: Rosie Duffield (Canterbury), Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower), and Karin Smyth (Bristol South).
As far as I can tell, the reason we are getting fatter is very simply that we eat more processed calorie dense food than we did before.
It’s not sugar, it’s not exercise, it’s not driving, it’s not carbs, it’s not reduced willpower, its not women going to work, it’s not seed oils, etc etc, although some or all might play a role.
It’s processed food, according to Occam’s Razor.
Very simply we invented things like “popcorn chicken” and we eat more and more of it, because it tastes bloody good. Britain is actually a world leader (think M&S readymeals) at such things.
Actually the calorie content of the UK diet has been going down for years:
"Since the 1940s overall food consumption, as measured by average daily calorie intake, has fallen. In 1940, the average daily calorie intake was around 2350, this increased to around 2600cal in the 1960s but has dropped to around 1750 by 2000. But, this data doesn’t include calories from drinks, sweets or meals out. If you include these food types, calorie intake in 2000 was about 2150 however, this is still lower than in 1940."
There is a difference in composition; much more ultraprocessed food, less bread and potatoes, but the biggest difference is reduced intrinsic exercise in lifestyle. I don't mean planned exercise, but just activities like manual labour, manual housework, walking to the bus stop, cycling to work, playing in the street. The problem is that like other adult animals we are hardwired to be physically lazy. Given the chance we choose the lazy option.
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
I think it it’s present form it is not a complete game changer, but as I understand it pharmas are finding ever better versions.
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
I expect Pharma to make a fortune from selling it. Do not expect it on the NHS
I think it quite likely that NICE will support it, and therefore get NHS funding.
Can they afford it? Everyone and her dog will want it.
I'm guessing it would have to be privates-in-a-vice eye wateringly expensive to not come out as a net-saving since the annual cost of treating obesity related illness seems to be nearly £6 billion. Obviously such a treatment wouldn't actually cure all obesity related illnesses but it makes sense that it could save the NHS a decent sum. How big is for NICE to determine, I guess?
It might also depend on what the drug companies charge the NHS per dose. Not all NHS medicines are cheap to buy and new, sought after treatments can be eye-wateringly expensive. Do you remember viagra when it came out? It was like gold and made Pfizer billions...
As far as I can tell, the reason we are getting fatter is very simply that we eat more processed calorie dense food than we did before.
It’s not sugar, it’s not exercise, it’s not driving, it’s not carbs, it’s not reduced willpower, its not women going to work, it’s not seed oils, etc etc, although some or all might play a role.
It’s processed food, according to Occam’s Razor.
Very simply we invented things like “popcorn chicken” and we eat more and more of it, because it tastes bloody good. Britain is actually a world leader (think M&S readymeals) at such things.
I think it is too easy to make such sweeping statements and I also think that inevitably they are false.
The reasons people are fat or thin are many and varied. For some - perhaps a significant number - I am sure you are correct. For others, equally, I am sure you are not.
I eat a tiny amount of processed foods. Take my wife and I as an example. We make our own bread, bake our own cakes and biscuits, create meals from scratch with fresh ingredients and have done all of this for many years - decades. I have varied in weight between 20 stone and 12 stone and, after many years it is clear to me that my weight gain or loss is almost entirely dependent on how much carbs I eat. If I stay below around 100g of carbs a day I lose weight, if I exceed around 150g I gain weight. I have only realised this in the last 4 or 5 years and since then I have strictly monitored and usually controlled my carb intake. I have time off for events like Christmas or holidays and at those times I see a quite rapid increase in my weight. When I go back on the low carb lifestyle the weight then drops off again.
Carbs are the only thing I control. I eat a reasonably high calorie intake but varying that makes little difference to my weight. I am active and walk at least 5 miles a day but again whether I do that or not makes little difference to my weight.
But this works only for me. My wife has a completely different way of controlling weight with exercise and her carb intake seems to make little difference to her weight.
I think the bottom line is that we all have slightly different ways in which we react to foodstuffs both physically and mentally and no one 'way' is right for everyone.
Interestingly, people are actually eating fewer calories than decades ago. The problem is less exercise, probably mainly due to less manual occupations.
Boris didn't know what he was doing and lied to cover that up?
It's not really news, is it?
He had no choice really if he wanted the deal. The EU had us over a barrel because we couldn't leave without an agreement.
Rubbish!
The Leavers spent years telling us that "No Deal was better than a bad deal" and in no uncertain terms that they would leave without a deal.
So, either they lied to us about No Deal being better than a bad deal or they lied to us about No Deal being an option.
So your choices are: They lied to us, or, they lied to us.
Choose!
This is an odd post. What 'leavers' said about the merits or otherwise of no deal is immaterial, the fact is that to operate the necessary borders in a no deal scenario would have required a significant investment; the politicians with the final decision on this (of course 'advised' by the civil service) were May and Hammond. Their failure to prepare for no deal was a policy choice and this is all very much in the public realm.
Given that we could not then leave without a deal, the EU could impose whatever they liked, and we had little to no ability to resist.
1/10 Anyway you'll all be pleased to know that I've found the solution for the Met Police's current woes (and that of other forces with the occasional bad apple in their ranks).
Enough agonising. They need to take a robust Scottish approach to it all.
2/10 1. Firmly state that police officers who misbehave are not "real" police officers.
As far as I can tell, the reason we are getting fatter is very simply that we eat more processed calorie dense food than we did before.
It’s not sugar, it’s not exercise, it’s not driving, it’s not carbs, it’s not reduced willpower, its not women going to work, it’s not seed oils, etc etc, although some or all might play a role.
It’s processed food, according to Occam’s Razor.
Very simply we invented things like “popcorn chicken” and we eat more and more of it, because it tastes bloody good. Britain is actually a world leader (think M&S readymeals) at such things.
I don't understand this at all. Lots of food is processed. Maholtra, the heart doctor, was saying something along the lines off all food in a packet is a bad idea; but that is 95% of all food in the supermarket. It is a weird message, some processed food is obviously better than others. In my experience the issue is just with having too many calories, and not enough exercise... and drinking alcohol. Thats it, it doesn't have anything to do with popcorn chicken.
As far as I can tell, the reason we are getting fatter is very simply that we eat more processed calorie dense food than we did before.
It’s not sugar, it’s not exercise, it’s not driving, it’s not carbs, it’s not reduced willpower, its not women going to work, it’s not seed oils, etc etc, although some or all might play a role.
It’s processed food, according to Occam’s Razor.
Very simply we invented things like “popcorn chicken” and we eat more and more of it, because it tastes bloody good. Britain is actually a world leader (think M&S readymeals) at such things.
As far as I can tell, the reason we are getting fatter is very simply that we eat more processed calorie dense food than we did before.
It’s not sugar, it’s not exercise, it’s not driving, it’s not carbs, it’s not reduced willpower, its not women going to work, it’s not seed oils, etc etc, although some or all might play a role.
It’s processed food, according to Occam’s Razor.
Very simply we invented things like “popcorn chicken” and we eat more and more of it, because it tastes bloody good. Britain is actually a world leader (think M&S readymeals) at such things.
I think it is too easy to make such sweeping statements and I also think that inevitably they are false.
The reasons people are fat or thin are many and varied. For some - perhaps a significant number - I am sure you are correct. For others, equally, I am sure you are not.
I eat a tiny amount of processed foods. Take my wife and I as an example. We make our own bread, bake our own cakes and biscuits, create meals from scratch with fresh ingredients and have done all of this for many years - decades. I have varied in weight between 20 stone and 12 stone and, after many years it is clear to me that my weight gain or loss is almost entirely dependent on how much carbs I eat. If I stay below around 100g of carbs a day I lose weight, if I exceed around 150g I gain weight. I have only realised this in the last 4 or 5 years and since then I have strictly monitored and usually controlled my carb intake. I have time off for events like Christmas or holidays and at those times I see a quite rapid increase in my weight. When I go back on the low carb lifestyle the weight then drops off again.
Carbs are the only thing I control. I eat a reasonably high calorie intake but varying that makes little difference to my weight. I am active and walk at least 5 miles a day but again whether I do that or not makes little difference to my weight.
But this works only for me. My wife has a completely different way of controlling weight with exercise and her carb intake seems to make little difference to her weight.
I think the bottom line is that we all have slightly different ways in which we react to foodstuffs both physically and mentally and no one 'way' is right for everyone.
The gateway hormone for fat to enter the cells is insulin. Insulin is created when blood glucose goes up. So getting fatter is a direct result of carbs/sugar.
Comments
That could have been better phrased, perhaps. 'That's not on iPlayer, but...' would have avoided any confusion
It's not really news, is it?
After all, successive leaders have been in the pocket of Nigel Farage.
It may backfire on the Tories.
Even "actual psychiatrists" don't have access to some sort of objective truth.
Unless you get it exactly right with a brilliant hair stylist (and maintain it impeccably) hair dye can actually make a man look OLDER (and weirder)
I have - ahem - researched this topic
No deal would have made the Trussterfuck look like relief
Some injection that stops you eating
Makes as much sense.
I would have said her stupidity was anything but remarkable for such an office holder.
Researchers just discovered a growing magma chamber beneath a submarine volcano near Santorini, Greece. Measurements suggest it could cause a devastating eruption within the next 150 years
https://mobile.twitter.com/QuantaMagazine/status/1615464201081978880
At least 20 of these were purchased by the 🇬🇧UK from the Belgian Flanders Technical Supply (FTS) in the Summer, but weren't visually confirmed on the battlefield until now.
https://mobile.twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1615446867801694210
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183
There is a NICE working party on it, so might become available on the NHS for obesity, not just for diabetes.
A lot of my diabetes patients struggle to tolerate it.
Why should people who work for a living get less than those who don't?
EDIT: And its 4% apparently? But even if the claim of 8% was true, its still negative in real terms and not what those who aren't working will be getting, so why should those who are working settle for less than those who aren't?
Once they figure out a way to make it a gummy instead of an injection it will be quite profound. Certainly, I expect obesity to be eliminated for the reasonably well off within ten years.
If the Protestant bigots wanted to cause an impasse, they'd cause one, all right.
At the moment, they don't seem to be much bothered, really, by any active "Irish Sea" issues. For all the talk, even when Brexit was just a twinkle in Malcolm Pearson and Vladimir Putin's respective eyes, I used to get searched when crossing between GB and NI. I never got any hassle travelling between GB and ROI, or between NI and ROI.
Quite a few don't like feeling nauseous by it.
(Not holding my breath tbh)
I think "supportive care" a healthier route than "yes, you're right, here's irreversible drugs and surgery".
The Leavers spent years telling us that "No Deal was better than a bad deal" and in no uncertain terms that they would leave without a deal.
So, either they lied to us about No Deal being better than a bad deal or they lied to us about No Deal being an option.
So your choices are: They lied to us, or, they lied to us.
Choose!
While saying the two issues were not identical, Jebb argued that passive smoking inflicted harm on others “and exactly the same is true of food”.
She's right it the issues are not identical. So why does she then immediately argue the method of harm infliction is 'exactly' the same.
It just isn't. The comparison to smoking is harmful to the argument about efforts to provide supportive environments for more healthy choices, because people can plainly see the two situations are not the same - choosing to enter a smoking pub is not like people felt compelled to put a cigarette in their mouth, yet with office cake you have to personally take more steps.
Junk food advertising, even office cake culture, these things can be argued reasonably well, but if your argument tries to equate lacking the will to say no to a piece of cake with passive absorption of smoke, it's just nonsense. We can argue the making it more socially unacceptable point, which she does, but if that is done in a way which makes people seem like they have no self control at all, it won't work.
The rest of it seems pretty bog standard stuff, so not sure why the antipathy toward a click bait headline that actually seems pretty in tone with the article.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/17/shortfall-of-330000-workers-in-uk-due-to-brexit-say-thinktanks
“Shortfall of 330,000 workers in UK due to Brexit, say thinktanks
Immigration from non-EU countries failed to take up slack after freedom of movement ended”
The kicker, buried under the lede:
“The research, entitled Early Impacts of the Post-Brexit Immigration System in the UK Labour Market, was produced by Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics at King’s College London and a senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, and John Springford, deputy director of the CER. “Overall, the new system is working broadly as Leave advocates promised,” they concluded.”
This is outstanding from Miriam Cates MP in the GRR (Scotland) debate just now. Watch to the end to see some of the appalling behaviour every female MP who has spoken about women's rights has been subjected to today. Disgraceful misogyny @HouseofCommons
https://twitter.com/CforWomenUK/status/1615399090103242752
2021: 1,412,360,000
2022: 1,411,750,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#Table_of_births_and_deaths_1949–2022
Whilst that which can get you a free bus journey is.
But that's Tories for you
Freedom for people like me.
Endless bureaucracy for people not like me
The UK gov action may be lawful, but it is also definitely unprecedented, so it seems probable at least some opponents of the bill don't like this reaction.
The idea people not in a big city have some grander level of trust is just bonkers. Do you think everywhere not London or Birmingham is a medieval hamlet sized place where everyone knows one another or something?
This is the jerk who said, when @jk_rowling said her experience of rape & domestic violence meant she valued single-sex spaces, that she was weaponising her trauma to hurt trans people. He was forced to apologise then. He's a disgrace to the Labour Party
https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1615406367426101249
(By the way Springford is the guy behind the much rubbished on here “counter UK” model which suggests Brexit has cost 5.5% of GDP and counting).
April 1st has arrived early this year...
https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/status/1615438463813275648?s=20&t=_BE4RBeYthi5A0sFuhQo1g
It’s not sugar, it’s not exercise, it’s not driving, it’s not carbs, it’s not reduced willpower, its not women going to work, it’s not seed oils, etc etc, although some or all might play a role.
It’s processed food, according to Occam’s Razor.
Very simply we invented things like “popcorn chicken” and we eat more and more of it, because it tastes bloody good. Britain is actually a world leader (think M&S readymeals) at such things.
Though the constant nostalgic hankering for capital punishment for such treasonable things as throwing an egg (often urged by the same persons who discuss the relative sexual attractions of specific female royals) does tend to obscure the question of what used to be done with trade unions. 1834 was when the Tolpuddle Martyrs got a free one way ticket to New South Wales or Botany Bay or whatever.
I'm also sure some Remainers forecast labour shortages - especially at the higher end, e.g. medicine, academia, etc.
It's also interesting to note that some 'food processing' methods developed over centuries because it is good for us, making the nutrients in the food more bioavalable, and getting rid of nasties. Tomatoes are better in their post-cooked form. Yoghurt is arguably better for you than milk. Carrots should be consumed with butter. Grains are better soaked, or sprouted.
"Since the 1940s overall food consumption, as measured by average daily calorie intake, has fallen. In 1940, the average daily calorie intake was around 2350, this increased to around 2600cal in the 1960s but has dropped to around 1750 by 2000. But, this data doesn’t include calories from drinks, sweets or meals out. If you include these food types, calorie intake in 2000 was about 2150 however, this is still lower than in 1940."
https://hbkportal.co.uk/index.php/geography/resourcereliance6/#:~:text=Since the 1940s overall food,drinks, sweets or meals out.
There is a difference in composition; much more ultraprocessed food, less bread and potatoes, but the biggest difference is reduced intrinsic exercise in lifestyle. I don't mean planned exercise, but just activities like manual labour, manual housework, walking to the bus stop, cycling to work, playing in the street. The problem is that like other adult animals we are hardwired to be physically lazy. Given the chance we choose the lazy option.
The reasons people are fat or thin are many and varied. For some - perhaps a significant number - I am sure you are correct. For others, equally, I am sure you are not.
I eat a tiny amount of processed foods. Take my wife and I as an example. We make our own bread, bake our own cakes and biscuits, create meals from scratch with fresh ingredients and have done all of this for many years - decades. I have varied in weight between 20 stone and 12 stone and, after many years it is clear to me that my weight gain or loss is almost entirely dependent on how much carbs I eat. If I stay below around 100g of carbs a day I lose weight, if I exceed around 150g I gain weight. I have only realised this in the last 4 or 5 years and since then I have strictly monitored and usually controlled my carb intake. I have time off for events like Christmas or holidays and at those times I see a quite rapid increase in my weight. When I go back on the low carb lifestyle the weight then drops off again.
Carbs are the only thing I control. I eat a reasonably high calorie intake but varying that makes little difference to my weight. I am active and walk at least 5 miles a day but again whether I do that or not makes little difference to my weight.
But this works only for me. My wife has a completely different way of controlling weight with exercise and her carb intake seems to make little difference to her weight.
I think the bottom line is that we all have slightly different ways in which we react to foodstuffs both physically and mentally and no one 'way' is right for everyone.
Given that we could not then leave without a deal, the EU could impose whatever they liked, and we had little to no ability to resist.
1/10
Anyway you'll all be pleased to know that I've found the solution for the Met Police's current woes (and that of other forces with the occasional bad apple in their ranks).
Enough agonising. They need to take a robust Scottish approach to it all.
2/10
1. Firmly state that police officers who misbehave are not "real" police officers.
2. Repeat at every opportunity that the problem is not "police officers" but "predatory males". (© N Sturgeon) This should impress the quite large group of people who find it hard .....
https://twitter.com/Cyclefree2/status/1615418464314789917
Posturing, misleading and lying is not a tactic to produce better relations with your negotiating partner.
Brexit was a project of lies and it has completely stuffed the UK.