Howdy, Stranger!

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

Latest political betting odds from Smarkets – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    Depends on what sort of Teachers.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    edited January 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    "Someday I'll catch that man without a pun and he'll look undressed"
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,684
    I feel like I'm banging on about this now but these Highway Code changes are bizarre. Reading up on it further:

    Rule 170 says "give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning". So if a car is not turning, i.e. going straight on, then the driver should not give way to a pedestrian?? Is the pedestrian to think "Hmm, did that car originate from right or left or did it come straight ahead?".

    What about roundabouts? Is the HC suggesting that drivers stop on a roundabout to give priority to a pedestrian round the corner?

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Cookie said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    I'm slightly more permissive - I'm fairly relaxed about young children knowing about the mechanics. But I don't see why primary schools should be teaching children about gender (which is hardly a uniformly accepted concept) or sexuality.

    But I find the amount of attention given by educators to the subject baffling. When I recently visited my local high school, fully a quarter of the library was given over to explorations of various aspects of the rainbow flag.
    Yes, it’s a social contagion, encouraged by the educational Establishment at every stage. It must be terrifying for those parents right now.
    There's a view that the cause of that graph is increased social pressure on girls and the rise of online resources on trans identity from the more affirmative groups - you're a girl, you don't fit in at school, you have some 'male' interests, you maybe are on the autism spectrum -> you are really a boy.

    (There's also an alternative view that this goup always existed and really do identify as boys and we're just getting better at diagnosis and treatment, take your pick, we don't really know).

    I my view, it's much better for girls (If you favour the first explanation as the more likely - and even for those under the second explanation) to have a suitably qualified person (teachers may not be at this point in time, but could be) explain the issues, the full implications of going down the transgender pathway, the rates of desistance among those who believed themselves to be trans at some point and some other solutions, rather than leave them to stumble on to an online forum and get a crib list of all the things they need to say (and not say) on their first visit to The Tavistock a regional clinic to get on to puberty blockers and start the pathway to physical transition.
    Indeed. But I'm rather sceptical that a school which is so keen to fly the trans flag (or indeed, any part of tge public sector which appears to have been captured almost wholesale by the trans lobby) would be likely to impart any message which might cause trans-curious kids to demur.
    Sweden, which had been in the lead on trans issues has recently changed their approach - no drugs for under 18s unless in exceptional circumstances and psychiatric help to explore issues without pushing either transition or desistance.

    This is in marked contrast to the US led "affirmative care" (sic) approach which encourages transition via drugs & surgery.

    The Interim Cass review was critical of "affirmative care" and I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up in a similar position to Sweden.

    In England and Wales anyway, but possibly not Scotland where the Cass Review is "not relevant".
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
    I could proof it for you.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
    I could proof it for you.
    Go on, give it a shot.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,873
    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    When I was about 6 or 7 years old I was thrown out of The Beavers for having a keyring filled with whisky and passing it round the other kids.

    The good old days when giving your child a novelty/advertising keyring full of whisky was still a-ok. Probably got me to pick up 10 ciggies from the shop on the way home too.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,452
    Let me repeat what I said earlier: I do not think Trump is a "prohibitive favorite" to win the Republican nomination.

    And here is some more data, supporting that conclusion, from another column by Aaron Blake, this one from last December:
    "Another pollster to weigh in after the election is Marist College. It asked Republican-leaning voters who has a better shot of winning in 2024: Trump or a hypothetical “someone else.” In October 2021, Trump led on that measure 50-35. Today, “someone else” leads 54-35.
    . . .
    But it’s not just that Republicans finally see a plausible alternative and worry about Trump’s prospects; there are signs that they have soured a bit on what he has wrought for the party. Before the 2022 election, the Quinnipiac poll showed Republicans said Trump has had “mainly a positive” impact on the party by a 76-point margin, 85-9. Today, it’s a much smaller 46-point margin: 70-24."
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/05/trump-2024-polls/

    The trends are not his friends.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    Depends on what sort of Teachers.
    The Department for Education has no truck with teachers. They prefer Bell's. Well, bell's ends.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
    I could proof it for you.
    I don't think I could en Jura 'nother pun like that.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
    I could proof it for you.
    Go on, give it a shot.
    It's not a good look. You have to think of the optics.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
    I could proof it for you.
    Go on, give it a shot.
    That one went against the grain.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    edited January 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
    I could proof it for you.
    Go on, give it a shot.
    That one went against the grain.
    I thought it was rather neat.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,300

    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    Kids are going to be reading and discussing this stuff on the internet and in the playground way before 14. Naive.
    Yes of course, kids will be kids and 14-year-olds all have phones now. That’s very different from bringing it into the classroom as a discussion topic.
    Do you not think it may be safer for 14-year-olds to be taught what's what by suitably-trained teachers rather than finding out from randoms on the internet and porn sites?
    Or, perhaps, parents?
    There are lots and lots of aspects of life which kids may want to find out about. Teachers can't teach kids everything. I find it puzzling that schools focus so heavily on teaching kids about the various forms of non-heterosexual sexuality. They don't tend to give anything like the same amount of emphasis to DIY, personal finance or driving, to give three random examples.
    I wish we lived in a world where all parents could be trusted to give dispassionate, objective information to their kids on the various forms of sexuality. But we don't, so there is a role for teachers (though admittedly not all of them can be trusted either).
    I'd say it's an issue I'd be more likely to trust parents on than teachers.
  • Some good news, I don't have any stress fractures in my legs. More rehab, strengthening to come to try and overcome these shin splints.

    Weighted tibialis raises can work wonders.
    Sadly I have been doing those for 8 weeks and not improved it just yet.

    But going to give a short run a go tomorrow and see. At the moment running more than 5 minutes is very painful!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940
    edited January 2023

    Some good news, I don't have any stress fractures in my legs. More rehab, strengthening to come to try and overcome these shin splints.

    Weighted tibialis raises can work wonders.
    Sadly I have been doing those for 8 weeks and not improved it just yet.

    But going to give a short run a go tomorrow and see. At the moment running more than 5 minutes is very painful!
    I hope it will improve. Maybe you need to increase the weights to progressively overload the muscles.

    This kind of bar is very useful: https://thetibbros.co.uk/products/iron-tib-bar-tibalis-raise-bar
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
    All you can do is wine!
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,452
    Benpointer - Thanks for catching my mistake. The full title of the book is: "When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment".
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
    All you can do is wine!
    I'm doing my best but if you feel you've gotta Knockdhu!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,464
    Roger said:

    Leon said:

    Has any PB-er ever tried Tramadol? You can buy it OTC here….

    Pain killers nothing more. Sorry. They give them out quite liberally in France mixed with Paracetamol. They used to in the UK too.
    No, that’s quite different to pure tramadol. The tramadol/paracetamol mix is much weaker and available everywhere. A different species
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,873

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Did it once at a party, a few tablets ground up and it was honestly a lovely experience but I got in a lot of shit from a very close doctor friend and despite having been very tempted in the years since I have avoided it as I can see it would become very addictive very quickly so avoid like the plague.
    I’ve kicked heroin and Xanax, reckon I can take Tramadol, no probs

    See you all in 8 years after jail & rehab
    Don’t be silly. It’ll fuck you up.
    It’s really not gonna fuck me up. I’m too old and grizzled for that. I’ve done EVERYTHING
    "Joey, you ever seen a grown man naked?"
    I rewatched that over Xmas - it's still very funny all these years later.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492
    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Did it once at a party, a few tablets ground up and it was honestly a lovely experience but I got in a lot of shit from a very close doctor friend and despite having been very tempted in the years since I have avoided it as I can see it would become very addictive very quickly so avoid like the plague.
    I’ve kicked heroin and Xanax, reckon I can take Tramadol, no probs

    See you all in 8 years after jail & rehab
    Don’t be silly. It’ll fuck you up.
    It’s really not gonna fuck me up. I’m too old and grizzled for that. I’ve done EVERYTHING
    "Joey, you ever seen a grown man naked?"
    I rewatched that over Xmas - it's still very funny all these years later.
    Shirley, you can't be serious?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2023
    I see we are getting the rewriting of history already....Ardern reputation wasn't "relatively intact" in NZ, it was down the toilet, inflation, crime*, stupid regulation, and COVID cock-ups over things like vaccination.

    Jacinda Ardern’s resignation prompts new questions over Trudeau’s future
    The Canadian leader is at a point in which he can bow out with his reputation relatively intact – just as the New Zealand PM did

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/24/canada-justin-trudeau-third-term-run

    * this one the most surprising, apparently things like violent gang crime and ram raiding robbery stats are at levels never seen before in NZ.
  • Stocky said:

    kamski said:

    Stocky said:

    kamski said:

    Stocky said:


    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Anyone come across these changes in the Highway Code? Came in nearly a year ago. There seems to be little awareness of the changes and they seem radical. I've not noticed anyone complying with new rules re: pedestrians at junctions for example.

    My experience has been around 50% compliance when I'm crossing the road and someone wants to turn in. So far, nobody has driven into me while I am exercising my right to cross.
    Do you mean when you have started to cross or just intending to cross?
    If you are poised, ready to cross, the car should wait to let you cross. A couple of times I have already stepped out, and a car has still turned across in front of me.
    That's not what the Highway Code says. I quote: "If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way".
    Highway Code rule H2:

    "At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning."

    https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/

    Can't find your quote there.
    Yes - rule 170 of the code.

    But you omitted the second sentence which conflicts with the first:

    "give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way".
    OK got it now.

    Doesn't actually conflict though does it? You should give way if they are waiting to cross. If they are already crossing give way.
    I think it does conflict. Unless it means that if someone is waiting to cross the driver should stop by way of guideline whereas if they have started to cross the driver must stop by way of law.

    In any case, what does waiting to cross mean? It's not always clear. And, as I've pointed out, it makes actual pedestrian crossings reductant at junctions.

    Why would a pedestrian press the button when it is now their right of way anyway? If the pedestrian does press the button and the driver does not stop then has the driver committed an offence? The HC has been so sloppily drafted that we cannot tell.

    As a further point, as a pedestrian I wait for a gap in the traffic before I cross as this is the polite thing to do (not inconveniencing folk unnecessarily). If I linger a metre or so from the kerb and a car stops when I didn't need it to this is really annoying and maybe dangerous if a car goes into the back to the stopped car.
    Furthermore, once self-driving cars predominate it won't be necessary for a pedestrian to 'stop, look and listen' at all. Just cross the road when and where you feel like. The cars are all programmed to stop immediately.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,464
    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
    All you can do is wine!
    I'm doing my best but if you feel you've gotta Knockdhu!
    Bloody dram a queens.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Did it once at a party, a few tablets ground up and it was honestly a lovely experience but I got in a lot of shit from a very close doctor friend and despite having been very tempted in the years since I have avoided it as I can see it would become very addictive very quickly so avoid like the plague.
    I’ve kicked heroin and Xanax, reckon I can take Tramadol, no probs

    See you all in 8 years after jail & rehab
    Don’t be silly. It’ll fuck you up.
    It’s really not gonna fuck me up. I’m too old and grizzled for that. I’ve done EVERYTHING
    "Joey, you ever seen a grown man naked?"
    I rewatched that over Xmas - it's still very funny all these years later.
    Hope you didn't park in a white zone.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,082
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    No you're not you're humble-bragging about your extensive experience with psychotic drugs and here you go again the youngest swinger in town havin' a larf and to hell with the consequences why I might even write about it to those other old codgers in the Speccie.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,300
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    You have had several informed second opinions. I suspect none of them were the one you wanted though :-)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Driver said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Did it once at a party, a few tablets ground up and it was honestly a lovely experience but I got in a lot of shit from a very close doctor friend and despite having been very tempted in the years since I have avoided it as I can see it would become very addictive very quickly so avoid like the plague.
    I’ve kicked heroin and Xanax, reckon I can take Tramadol, no probs

    See you all in 8 years after jail & rehab
    Don’t be silly. It’ll fuck you up.
    It’s really not gonna fuck me up. I’m too old and grizzled for that. I’ve done EVERYTHING
    "Joey, you ever seen a grown man naked?"
    I rewatched that over Xmas - it's still very funny all these years later.
    Hope you didn't park in a white zone.
    Or have an abortion?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    Tramadol came out not long before I retired. I saw about a dozen patients with it, all with problems.
    Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,371
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I couldn't be gin to understand this joke.
    That's a pun in spirit only.
    All you can do is wine!
    I'm doing my best but if you feel you've gotta Knockdhu!
    Bloody dram a queens.
    stop Grouseing, (famously)
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,873
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    If they actually used the term 'a hoot' you should disregard anything more they say and deny ever knowing them.
  • Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    Tramadol came out not long before I retired. I saw about a dozen patients with it, all with problems.
    Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
    Mrs S. receives a generous allowance of Oxycodone (Chateau Sackler) for osteoarthritis and I sometimes wonder if it might be a suitable aperitif after a hard day doing nothing, but Rioja always wins out in the end. Better the devil you know.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,310
    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    You were clearly better brought up than me. It wasn't until my mid 20s that I discovered single malts :disappointed:
  • tlg86 said:

    Weekly deaths update:

    https://tinyurl.com/4tnjfdw8

    Having criticised the media's reaction to the weekly deaths reported for the week ending 23 December (cold weather, so not a surprise), I'm shocked at how little attention these figures are getting at the moment. We've averaged over 2,000 non-COVID deaths in excess of the five year average for the last four weeks. That's a lot.

    I started a new job at the start of the year, so don't have much spare time to look into this more closely, but I will do if I get a chance this weekend.

    Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average

    07-Oct-22 | 9,835 | 400 | 10,807 | 972
    14-Oct-22 | 10,091 | 565 | 11,134 | 1,043
    21-Oct-22 | 10,224 | 687 | 11,251 | 1,027
    28-Oct-22 | 10,013 | 651 | 10,594 | 581
    04-Nov-22 | 10,278 | 650 | 11,145 | 867
    11-Nov-22 | 10,743 | 518 | 11,020 | 277
    18-Nov-22 | 10,786 | 423 | 11,156 | 370
    25-Nov-22 | 10,705 | 348 | 11,135 | 430
    02-Dec-22 | 10,725 | 317 | 10,990 | 265
    09-Dec-22 | 11,007 | 326 | 11,368 | 361
    16-Dec-22 | 11,203 | 390 | 11,999 | 796
    23-Dec-22 | 12,037 | 429 | 14,101 | 2,064
    30-Dec-22 | 7,925 | 393 | 9,124 | 1,199
    06-Jan-23 | 12,037 | 739 | 14,244 | 2,207
    13-Jan-23 | 13,749 | 922 | 16,459 | 2,710

    Combination of healthcare collapse and people not heating their homes sufficiently in cold weather?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,464
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    No you're not you're humble-bragging about your extensive experience with psychotic drugs and here you go again the youngest swinger in town havin' a larf and to hell with the consequences why I might even write about it to those other old codgers in the Speccie.
    The word you seek is “psychotropic” not “psychotic”
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,747
    "Classified documents found at Mike Pence's home and turned over to DOJ: Sources"

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/classified-documents-found-mike-pences-home-turned-doj/story?id=96637301
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Did it once at a party, a few tablets ground up and it was honestly a lovely experience but I got in a lot of shit from a very close doctor friend and despite having been very tempted in the years since I have avoided it as I can see it would become very addictive very quickly so avoid like the plague.
    I’ve kicked heroin and Xanax, reckon I can take Tramadol, no probs

    See you all in 8 years after jail & rehab
    Don’t be silly. It’ll fuck you up.
    It’s really not gonna fuck me up. I’m too old and grizzled for that. I’ve done EVERYTHING
    Whay ask and then ignore the sage advice.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,455

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    This was all covered in whisky lessons during year two at my secondary school.
    Covered by government Grant's?
    You have to watch your VAT returns - especially those from 1969.....
    I am suddenly reminded of my dad telling me that VAT 69 was the pope's phone number, at an age when this felt entirely plausible. (Younger readers need to know that all London numbers began with 3 letters. PAL was Palmers Green for example. Happy days.)

  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,452
    FeersumEnjineeya asked: "Combination of healthcare collapse and people not heating their homes sufficiently in cold weather?"

    Could alcohol have anything to do with that pattern? (Perhaps even in combination with cold weather?)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772
    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    You were clearly better brought up than me. It wasn't until my mid 20s that I discovered single malts :disappointed:
    My surgeon introduced me to single malts. Glenmorangie: he said there were better whiskies, but Glenmorangie's decent enough, and you can get it virtually everywhere in the world. I must have been 19, and he came into my room in the hospital, smoking a cigar and with a bottle of whisky in his hand.

    Damn. I'm doing Dry January and this has made me want to raise a glass to his memory. :(
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”

    [Thankfully this means the jury rejected the extraordinary argument from Bryson's KC that "if you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning ... that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges."]

    Key facts: this convicted rapist started transitioning in 2020 AFTER he raped two women in 2016 and 2019 with what was referred to in court as “her penis”

    But, no, it’ll never ever happen and women are crazy to fear that male sex offenders will cynically abuse a system that allows them to change their legal sex with barely any safeguards.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1617881626503155716

    The proposition that the KC, one of the most experienced at the Scottish bar, put forward in that case was little short of outrageous. I am relieved that the Jury were not misdirected from the real issue in the case, namely whether 2 very vulnerable young women had been raped.
    The general public appears to have remained sensible through all this, unlike some of their more excitable politicians....
    The problem though is what does the Scottish Prison Service do with this person for the next 5 or so years? She will no doubt want to go to a women's prison. The risk assessment connected with that is going to be horrendous. In fairness she would not be safe in a men's prison either.
    Sounds liek a despicable person at best , men's prison for me where HE can do less damage.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,082
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    No you're not you're humble-bragging about your extensive experience with psychotic drugs and here you go again the youngest swinger in town havin' a larf and to hell with the consequences why I might even write about it to those other old codgers in the Speccie.
    The word you seek is “psychotropic” not “psychotic”
    Et voila.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”

    [Thankfully this means the jury rejected the extraordinary argument from Bryson's KC that "if you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning ... that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges."]

    Key facts: this convicted rapist started transitioning in 2020 AFTER he raped two women in 2016 and 2019 with what was referred to in court as “her penis”

    But, no, it’ll never ever happen and women are crazy to fear that male sex offenders will cynically abuse a system that allows them to change their legal sex with barely any safeguards.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1617881626503155716

    The proposition that the KC, one of the most experienced at the Scottish bar, put forward in that case was little short of outrageous. I am relieved that the Jury were not misdirected from the real issue in the case, namely whether 2 very vulnerable young women had been raped.
    The general public appears to have remained sensible through all this, unlike some of their more excitable politicians....
    The problem though is what does the Scottish Prison Service do with this person for the next 5 or so years? She will no doubt want to go to a women's prison. The risk assessment connected with that is going to be horrendous. In fairness she would not be safe in a men's prison either.
    Sounds liek a despicable person at best , men's prison for me where HE can do less damage.
    And for longer than 5 years!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. (Snip)

    That seems like an utterly sensible amendment.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,467

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    You were clearly better brought up than me. It wasn't until my mid 20s that I discovered single malts :disappointed:
    My surgeon introduced me to single malts. Glenmorangie: he said there were better whiskies, but Glenmorangie's decent enough, and you can get it virtually everywhere in the world. I must have been 19, and he came into my room in the hospital, smoking a cigar and with a bottle of whisky in his hand.

    Damn. I'm doing Dry January and this has made me want to raise a glass to his memory. :(
    This is unexpectedly topical - if a remarkably confused sense of Scottish political history.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23270944.diana-gabaldon-claims-snp-stopped-use-term-scotch-scotland/
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,146
    edited January 2023

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    Tramadol came out not long before I retired. I saw about a dozen patients with it, all with problems.
    Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
    My late sister was prescribed Tramadol following her terminal cancer diagnosis but I believe it is fairly well monitored by GP's as it can become addictive
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,510

    CatMan said:

    "Classified documents found at Mike Pence's home and turned over to DOJ: Sources"

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/classified-documents-found-mike-pences-home-turned-doj/story?id=96637301

    Are there any classified documents not stored in politicians homes?
    Given his attitude and general obstuctiveness I would be far from surprised if Trump is the most egregious offender in terms of how he stored his and how he responded to their discovery, but I am also not going to be shocked if a great many politicians have not been following proper document storage or retention policies - it's even those who are aware of them often do not, at least perfectly.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,606
    edited January 2023
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”

    [Thankfully this means the jury rejected the extraordinary argument from Bryson's KC that "if you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning ... that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges."]

    Key facts: this convicted rapist started transitioning in 2020 AFTER he raped two women in 2016 and 2019 with what was referred to in court as “her penis”

    But, no, it’ll never ever happen and women are crazy to fear that male sex offenders will cynically abuse a system that allows them to change their legal sex with barely any safeguards.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1617881626503155716

    The proposition that the KC, one of the most experienced at the Scottish bar, put forward in that case was little short of outrageous. I am relieved that the Jury were not misdirected from the real issue in the case, namely whether 2 very vulnerable young women had been raped.
    The general public appears to have remained sensible through all this, unlike some of their more excitable politicians....
    The problem though is what does the Scottish Prison Service do with this person for the next 5 or so years? She will no doubt want to go to a women's prison. The risk assessment connected with that is going to be horrendous. In fairness she would not be safe in a men's prison either.
    Sounds liek a despicable person at best , men's prison for me where HE can do less damage.
    Better to offer him a free sex change operation, if he doesn't want it then off to the bloke's prison.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,464
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    No you're not you're humble-bragging about your extensive experience with psychotic drugs and here you go again the youngest swinger in town havin' a larf and to hell with the consequences why I might even write about it to those other old codgers in the Speccie.
    The word you seek is “psychotropic” not “psychotic”
    Et voila.
    Just doing my best to raise your reading age
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    Tramadol came out not long before I retired. I saw about a dozen patients with it, all with problems.
    Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
    I’m
    My late sister was prescribed Tramadol following her terminal cancer diagnosis but I believe it is fairly well monitored by GP's as it can become addictive
    It’s quite useful for pain management in such cases but for long term it’s a no-no.
  • Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    Tramadol came out not long before I retired. I saw about a dozen patients with it, all with problems.
    Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
    I’m
    My late sister was prescribed Tramadol following her terminal cancer diagnosis but I believe it is fairly well monitored by GP's as it can become addictive
    It’s quite useful for pain management in such cases but for long term it’s a no-no.
    In my sisters case it was nearly 2 years but I agree it should not be long term
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    MaxPB said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”

    [Thankfully this means the jury rejected the extraordinary argument from Bryson's KC that "if you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning ... that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges."]

    Key facts: this convicted rapist started transitioning in 2020 AFTER he raped two women in 2016 and 2019 with what was referred to in court as “her penis”

    But, no, it’ll never ever happen and women are crazy to fear that male sex offenders will cynically abuse a system that allows them to change their legal sex with barely any safeguards.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1617881626503155716

    The proposition that the KC, one of the most experienced at the Scottish bar, put forward in that case was little short of outrageous. I am relieved that the Jury were not misdirected from the real issue in the case, namely whether 2 very vulnerable young women had been raped.
    The general public appears to have remained sensible through all this, unlike some of their more excitable politicians....
    The problem though is what does the Scottish Prison Service do with this person for the next 5 or so years? She will no doubt want to go to a women's prison. The risk assessment connected with that is going to be horrendous. In fairness she would not be safe in a men's prison either.
    Sounds liek a despicable person at best , men's prison for me where HE can do less damage.
    Better to offer him a free sex change operation, if he doesn't want it then off to the bloke's prison.
    As I recall those were along the lines of Alan Turing's options.

    Which are now considered - shall we say - controversial?

    Ironic to reflect these things come full circle...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,901
    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,076
    Looks like the Germans have finally decided to send Leopards to Ukraine.
  • Jersey has fallen to Woke. Thoughts and prayers.




  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    Tramadol came out not long before I retired. I saw about a dozen patients with it, all with problems.
    Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
    I’m
    My late sister was prescribed Tramadol following her terminal cancer diagnosis but I believe it is fairly well monitored by GP's as it can become addictive
    It’s quite useful for pain management in such cases but for long term it’s a no-no.
    Codeine was bad enough for me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    edited January 2023
    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    I thought about posting that on here but then I thought the usual suspects would just dismiss it as another personal attack on OFSTED.

    What's genuinely bizarre is that here - where the regulator failed to follow their own safeguarding procedures, such as they are - the immediate response of that stupid old fool Spielman is 'we need more powers to prevent this thing (which we would have prevented by doing very simple things we're not doing because we're too bloody arrogant).'

    She's as bad as Nicola Sturgeon, she really is.

    Not that the police seem to have done any better.

    I hope every single director is struck off, jailed and banned from working with children for life.
  • Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    You were clearly better brought up than me. It wasn't until my mid 20s that I discovered single malts :disappointed:
    My surgeon introduced me to single malts. Glenmorangie: he said there were better whiskies, but Glenmorangie's decent enough, and you can get it virtually everywhere in the world. I must have been 19, and he came into my room in the hospital, smoking a cigar and with a bottle of whisky in his hand.

    Damn. I'm doing Dry January and this has made me want to raise a glass to his memory. :(
    This is unexpectedly topical - if a remarkably confused sense of Scottish political history.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23270944.diana-gabaldon-claims-snp-stopped-use-term-scotch-scotland/
    Scotch Experts now have a patron saint.
    I never got past one episode of Outlanders as I found it overwrought rubbish, but it’s fans seem to be borderline obsessive.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,818

    Jersey has fallen to Woke. Thoughts and prayers.




    This is Vic from St Helier on his way for his smear test.


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis is running - otherwise is there any point to this crap ?

    Florida teachers told to remove books from classroom libraries or risk felony prosecution
    https://popular.info/p/florida-teachers-told-to-remove-books
    ...In an interview with Popular Information, Chapman said that the policy was put into place last week in response to HB 1467, which was signed into law by DeSantis last March. That law established that teachers could not be trusted to select books appropriate for their students. Instead, the law requires:

    Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.

    In Florida, school librarians are called "media specialists" and hold media specialist certificates. A rule passed by the Florida Department of Education last week states that a "library media center" includes any books made available to students, including in classrooms. This means that classroom libraries that are curated by teachers, not librarians, are now illegal. ..

    Hasn’t it always been the case, that school libraries don’t contain porn, but rather age-appropriate resources?

    The problem now, is that too many people in the US education system appear to be in favour of the porn in schools.

    “Banning books” is wildly popular with parents, once the context is explained.
    This law makes it a criminal felony offence for a teacher to have any books in the classroom not pre-approved by a librarian.

    It's nuts.
    Yes, it’s a felony to show porn to children. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
    No, it does more than that. Stop lying.
    We are talking about books such as “Gender Queer”, which is very much an adult book, and contains graphic descriptions and illustrations of unusual sexual activity between adults. That is being introduced into primary schools. That’s what this law is about.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866267/banned-books-maia-kobabe-explores-gender-identity-in-gender-queer

    Read the description (from NPR, as close as America has to the BBC) of this book, and tell me it’s appropriate for seven year olds.
    A question; in your view, what should a seven year-old know about sex and gender? If not seven, how old should they be to learn such things?
    Fair question. I’ll admit to being pretty conservative on this sort of thing.

    I think that seven-year-olds should know that there are boys and girls, with the ‘birds and the bees’ at 10 or 11.

    In my experience, the the mechanics of human reproduction were first discussed in biology lessons in the second year of secondary school, aged 12, with the social side of sex and marriage a year later, in the context of general studies and religious studies. (Private Catholic boys’ school).

    I think that academic discussion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ might reasonably be broached at 14 or 15, with a lot of context and age-appropriate material. Which still doesn’t include graphic descriptions and depictions of unusual sexual activity that isn’t informative, such as explaining what can and can’t result in a pregnancy.
    That's fair enough; except how do you define ‘alternative lifestyles’ ? Kids learn a lot of this stuff quite early; a friend's son has a schoolfriend who has two mums. My son asked me about it, and I said they loved each other. He accepted it. What's the harm in that?

    Also, leaving learning about these things too late might also lead to difficulties; the last thing we need is kids to think that 'alternative lifestyles' are dangerous things because they cannot learn about them for a few years.

    Also, with some kids starting puberty earlier, at 8 or 9, I'd argue the 'birds and the bees' in the vague sense needs teaching earlier than 10 or 11, especially as some kids will have older siblings going through things they need to contextualise. Although I'd say that should be a broad approach at that age; the yucky details can wait a few years.

    (When I was at school I was annoyed a friend had two dads - though that was not a gay relationship; one was his biological father, the other his stepdad. I was jealous because his dads used to try to outcompete each other to buy him things.)
    Yes, that sort of thing, that kids discover by themselves, is absolutely fine.

    The “yucky details”, as you put it, can be reserved for the teenagers rather than the seven-year-olds.
    TBH I think it depends on the kids. One of my son's friends is a boy, and has a sister. They are 8 and 7 respectively. Their mum is a doctor, and she explained things to them at a young age, explained what the body parts are and what they were *generally* used for. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

    I've told my son (8) a few things, but he thinks kissing is yucky, and girls are just more people to play with, so we're not pressing it. We're giving information on demand.

    Good parents will talk to their kids well. The problem is kids whose parents are not good, or do not want to give them the information when they need it. That can be problematic, and it's something schools probably cannot win with.

    (as an aside: I think he knows more than he lets on. One day I bought him a GCSE science book he wanted in Ely, and he read it as I drove home. He went very quiet. I asked him what he was reading, and he said "reproduction". A few minutes later he said: "I feel sick..." ) ;)
    Lol, that’s funny. ;)

    Give him a few years…
    Reminds me of that old Dewars whisky ad
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/384590912988
    Interesting: rather leaves open the question of what age one is supposed to transition to blended whiskies, never mind single malts. (I was drinking single malts from 18 myself.)

    BTW the other ads on that page include the Everclear alcohol Sea Shanty was lauding some time back as a useful if taxed source of not too dilute ethanol sans the denaturants.
    You were clearly better brought up than me. It wasn't until my mid 20s that I discovered single malts :disappointed:
    My surgeon introduced me to single malts. Glenmorangie: he said there were better whiskies, but Glenmorangie's decent enough, and you can get it virtually everywhere in the world. I must have been 19, and he came into my room in the hospital, smoking a cigar and with a bottle of whisky in his hand.

    Damn. I'm doing Dry January and this has made me want to raise a glass to his memory. :(
    This is unexpectedly topical - if a remarkably confused sense of Scottish political history.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23270944.diana-gabaldon-claims-snp-stopped-use-term-scotch-scotland/
    Scotch Experts now have a patron saint.
    I never got past one episode of Outlanders as I found it overwrought rubbish, but it’s fans seem to be borderline obsessive.
    Do you think Stuart prays to her daily?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,213
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The party of 'liberty'.

    https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1617657063215366144
    Top Republican Jim Banks just indicated he wants to find a way to stop “young ladies” from “hopping in a car” to travel to another state for reproductive care. He agreed the fact that women can travel for care means “the fight is far from over.”

    Presumably “reproductive care”, in this context, means “killing the baby”?
    That's loaded the other way. It would be better to say 'an abortion'. 'Reproductive care' sounds like a manicure for the ovaries.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,404

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”

    [Thankfully this means the jury rejected the extraordinary argument from Bryson's KC that "if you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning ... that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges."]

    Key facts: this convicted rapist started transitioning in 2020 AFTER he raped two women in 2016 and 2019 with what was referred to in court as “her penis”

    But, no, it’ll never ever happen and women are crazy to fear that male sex offenders will cynically abuse a system that allows them to change their legal sex with barely any safeguards.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1617881626503155716

    The proposition that the KC, one of the most experienced at the Scottish bar, put forward in that case was little short of outrageous. I am relieved that the Jury were not misdirected from the real issue in the case, namely whether 2 very vulnerable young women had been raped.
    The general public appears to have remained sensible through all this, unlike some of their more excitable politicians....
    The problem though is what does the Scottish Prison Service do with this person for the next 5 or so years? She will no doubt want to go to a women's prison. The risk assessment connected with that is going to be horrendous. In fairness she would not be safe in a men's prison either.
    Sounds liek a despicable person at best , men's prison for me where HE can do less damage.
    And for longer than 5 years!
    Let's hope he/she is not less than 25 years old.

    Under new sentencing guidelines in Scotland people under the age of 25 are now not to be regarded as fully responsible for criminal actions. Apparently they are not mature enough and should be considered adolescents.

    https://www.itv.com/news/border/2022-01-26/new-scottish-guidance-for-sentencing-young-people-comes-into-effect

    NB. On the other hand, in the wonderful world of woke that is now Scotland, 16 year old adolescents will be regarded as adults for the purpose of changing their gender.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    I thought about posting that on here but then I thought the usual suspects would just dismiss it as another personal attack on OFSTED.

    What's genuinely bizarre is that here - where the regulator failed to follow their own safeguarding procedures, such as they are - the immediate response of that stupid old fool Spielman is 'we need more powers to prevent this thing (which we would have prevented by doing very simple things we're not doing because we're too bloody arrogant).'

    She's as bad as Nicola Sturgeon, she really is.

    Not that the police seem to have done any better.

    I hope every single director is struck off, jailed and banned from working with children for life.
    Don’t you mean promoted to a better job, with more responsibility for safeguarding more children?

    And a staring role in a documentary about what happened where they can explain they are the real victims in all this?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    Tramadol came out not long before I retired. I saw about a dozen patients with it, all with problems.
    Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
    I’m
    My late sister was prescribed Tramadol following her terminal cancer diagnosis but I believe it is fairly well monitored by GP's as it can become addictive
    It’s quite useful for pain management in such cases but for long term it’s a no-no.
    Codeine was bad enough for me.
    When I broke various bones I thought morphine would be fun - none of that! It helped with the pain but I didn’t like the side effects at all. Paracetamol was just fine after a while…
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,404

    Jersey has fallen to Woke. Thoughts and prayers.




    Maybe when Scotland becomes independent Jersey could apply to become a Scottish Crown Colony under Good Queen Nicola?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    edited January 2023

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    I thought about posting that on here but then I thought the usual suspects would just dismiss it as another personal attack on OFSTED.

    What's genuinely bizarre is that here - where the regulator failed to follow their own safeguarding procedures, such as they are - the immediate response of that stupid old fool Spielman is 'we need more powers to prevent this thing (which we would have prevented by doing very simple things we're not doing because we're too bloody arrogant).'

    She's as bad as Nicola Sturgeon, she really is.

    Not that the police seem to have done any better.

    I hope every single director is struck off, jailed and banned from working with children for life.
    Don’t you mean promoted to a better job, with more responsibility for safeguarding more children?

    And a staring role in a documentary about what happened where they can explain they are the real victims in all this?
    No, that's what *will* happen. Not what I hope will happen.

    Edit - besides, OFSTED don't safeguard children. They don't have proper vetting procedures, and they have no established system for reporting breaches by their inspectors.

    It's one of the reasons why they're a bit shit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,510
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    I thought about posting that on here but then I thought the usual suspects would just dismiss it as another personal attack on OFSTED.

    What's genuinely bizarre is that here - where the regulator failed to follow their own safeguarding procedures, such as they are - the immediate response of that stupid old fool Spielman is 'we need more powers to prevent this thing (which we would have prevented by doing very simple things we're not doing because we're too bloody arrogant).'
    Bit like the tendency of politicians to propose new laws/departments as it sounds sexier than making existing systems work, or using existing laws which are often perfectly adequate.

    Another example to add to the pile, like those councils deemed fine then revealed to be bankrupt 2 years later.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Surely, in the depraved ranks of His Majesty’s Honourable Guild of PB-ers, there must be one miscreant who can give me the skinny on Tramadol

    Why not just paracetamol
    Because I have a good friend here in Bangkok who SWEARS that Tramadol is a hoot - and that the addictive pitfalls are exaggerated

    I am seeking an informed 2nd opinion
    Tramadol came out not long before I retired. I saw about a dozen patients with it, all with problems.
    Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
    I’m
    My late sister was prescribed Tramadol following her terminal cancer diagnosis but I believe it is fairly well monitored by GP's as it can become addictive
    It’s quite useful for pain management in such cases but for long term it’s a no-no.
    Codeine was bad enough for me.
    When I broke various bones I thought morphine would be fun - none of that! It helped with the pain but I didn’t like the side effects at all. Paracetamol was just fine after a while…
    When I had meningitis, the morphine was wonderful. I didn't care as they repeatedly failed to take a spinal tap. On the other hand Mrs J, who was watching, still has nightmares about it ...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    I thought about posting that on here but then I thought the usual suspects would just dismiss it as another personal attack on OFSTED.

    What's genuinely bizarre is that here - where the regulator failed to follow their own safeguarding procedures, such as they are - the immediate response of that stupid old fool Spielman is 'we need more powers to prevent this thing (which we would have prevented by doing very simple things we're not doing because we're too bloody arrogant).'
    Bit like the tendency of politicians to propose new laws/departments as it sounds sexier than making existing systems work, or using existing laws which are often perfectly adequate.

    Another example to add to the pile, like those councils deemed fine then revealed to be bankrupt 2 years later.
    Also, of course, it excuses them from responsibility. 'It didn't happen because I'm useless, or say that girls don't regard sexting as a safeguarding matter, or can't even say what safeguarding is, because actually I'm awesome and it's those nasty politicians who don't give me enough power who make me look like an utter useless twat.'

    To be fair to OFSTED (goes against the grain, but...) I don't think they should be inspecting children's homes. Or kindergartens, or anything other than the quality of education - and arguably, there should be separate inspectorates for primary and secondary.

    Children's homes are a highly specialised area and should be inspected - regularly - by people who know what they're doing and have the experience to make informed judgements. Not once every five years by an FE college lecturer.

    One of the problems with OFSTED is it's the enforcement arm of the DfE, which is ridiculous given the complexity of the DfE's remit and the particular thing OFSTED is most associated with in the public mind. If it was broken up into half a dozen smaller, more focused agencies I think things would improve.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983

    Looks like the Germans have finally decided to send Leopards to Ukraine.

    The Americans are sending Abrams.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772

    Looks like the Germans have finally decided to send Leopards to Ukraine.

    The Americans are sending Abrams.
    Let's hope so, if only to give the German government some backbone.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045

    Looks like the Germans have finally decided to send Leopards to Ukraine.

    The Americans are sending Abrams.
    JJ or Gerald?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    I thought about posting that on here but then I thought the usual suspects would just dismiss it as another personal attack on OFSTED.

    What's genuinely bizarre is that here - where the regulator failed to follow their own safeguarding procedures, such as they are - the immediate response of that stupid old fool Spielman is 'we need more powers to prevent this thing (which we would have prevented by doing very simple things we're not doing because we're too bloody arrogant).'

    She's as bad as Nicola Sturgeon, she really is.

    Not that the police seem to have done any better.

    I hope every single director is struck off, jailed and banned from working with children for life.
    Don’t you mean promoted to a better job, with more responsibility for safeguarding more children?

    And a staring role in a documentary about what happened where they can explain they are the real victims in all this?
    No, that's what *will* happen. Not what I hope will happen.

    Edit - besides, OFSTED don't safeguard children. They don't have proper vetting procedures, and they have no established system for reporting breaches by their inspectors.

    It's one of the reasons why they're a bit shit.
    Well, we can only expect they will get better paying jobs with more responsibility. That’s how accountability works, isn’t it?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    I thought about posting that on here but then I thought the usual suspects would just dismiss it as another personal attack on OFSTED.

    What's genuinely bizarre is that here - where the regulator failed to follow their own safeguarding procedures, such as they are - the immediate response of that stupid old fool Spielman is 'we need more powers to prevent this thing (which we would have prevented by doing very simple things we're not doing because we're too bloody arrogant).'

    She's as bad as Nicola Sturgeon, she really is.

    Not that the police seem to have done any better.

    I hope every single director is struck off, jailed and banned from working with children for life.
    Don’t you mean promoted to a better job, with more responsibility for safeguarding more children?

    And a staring role in a documentary about what happened where they can explain they are the real victims in all this?
    No, that's what *will* happen. Not what I hope will happen.

    Edit - besides, OFSTED don't safeguard children. They don't have proper vetting procedures, and they have no established system for reporting breaches by their inspectors.

    It's one of the reasons why they're a bit shit.
    Well, we can only expect they will get better paying jobs with more responsibility. That’s how accountability works, isn’t it?
    Well, Spielman is an accountant.* Apparently quite a good one too. So she must know about accountability.

    *Actually she was an investment fund manager, but the joke doesn't work quite as well with that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,765
    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    Thankfully this is very much a one-off, and not at all representative of dozens hundreds of court cases, over decades, involving abuse of children in what’s somewhat euphemistically called “care”.

    It’s a massive scandal but the media ignore it, because it doesn’t fit their “narrative”.
  • Jersey has fallen to Woke. Thoughts and prayers.




    Maybe when Scotland becomes independent Jersey could apply to become a Scottish Crown Colony under Good Queen Nicola?
    I hadn’t realised that your repetitive predictions of Sturgeon going off to another job involved a throne.
    I like the ‘when’ instead of ‘if’, mind.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    MaxPB said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”

    [Thankfully this means the jury rejected the extraordinary argument from Bryson's KC that "if you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning ... that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges."]

    Key facts: this convicted rapist started transitioning in 2020 AFTER he raped two women in 2016 and 2019 with what was referred to in court as “her penis”

    But, no, it’ll never ever happen and women are crazy to fear that male sex offenders will cynically abuse a system that allows them to change their legal sex with barely any safeguards.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1617881626503155716

    The proposition that the KC, one of the most experienced at the Scottish bar, put forward in that case was little short of outrageous. I am relieved that the Jury were not misdirected from the real issue in the case, namely whether 2 very vulnerable young women had been raped.
    The general public appears to have remained sensible through all this, unlike some of their more excitable politicians....
    The problem though is what does the Scottish Prison Service do with this person for the next 5 or so years? She will no doubt want to go to a women's prison. The risk assessment connected with that is going to be horrendous. In fairness she would not be safe in a men's prison either.
    Sounds liek a despicable person at best , men's prison for me where HE can do less damage.
    Better to offer him a free sex change operation, if he doesn't want it then off to the bloke's prison.
    given over 95% don't want any operation it is likely a safe bet he is in that camp.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,213
    ...
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    I thought about posting that on here but then I thought the usual suspects would just dismiss it as another personal attack on OFSTED.

    What's genuinely bizarre is that here - where the regulator failed to follow their own safeguarding procedures, such as they are - the immediate response of that stupid old fool Spielman is 'we need more powers to prevent this thing (which we would have prevented by doing very simple things we're not doing because we're too bloody arrogant).'
    Bit like the tendency of politicians to propose new laws/departments as it sounds sexier than making existing systems work, or using existing laws which are often perfectly adequate.

    Another example to add to the pile, like those councils deemed fine then revealed to be bankrupt 2 years later.
    I am in favour of new departments/taskforces, with overlapping responsibilities with the old ones. They compete for budget and authority. DOE doing a shit job? Get the new ED to set up schools, and divert the DOE budget to them instead. It's the best way imo to rein in the Civil Service.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    Some good news, I don't have any stress fractures in my legs. More rehab, strengthening to come to try and overcome these shin splints.

    Which store did you buy the shin splints in?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    ydoethur said:

    Looks like the Germans have finally decided to send Leopards to Ukraine.

    The Americans are sending Abrams.
    JJ or Gerald?
    Creighton

    For some reason I always thought that a great name for a General.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”

    [Thankfully this means the jury rejected the extraordinary argument from Bryson's KC that "if you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning ... that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges."]

    Key facts: this convicted rapist started transitioning in 2020 AFTER he raped two women in 2016 and 2019 with what was referred to in court as “her penis”

    But, no, it’ll never ever happen and women are crazy to fear that male sex offenders will cynically abuse a system that allows them to change their legal sex with barely any safeguards.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1617881626503155716

    The proposition that the KC, one of the most experienced at the Scottish bar, put forward in that case was little short of outrageous. I am relieved that the Jury were not misdirected from the real issue in the case, namely whether 2 very vulnerable young women had been raped.
    The general public appears to have remained sensible through all this, unlike some of their more excitable politicians....
    The problem though is what does the Scottish Prison Service do with this person for the next 5 or so years? She will no doubt want to go to a women's prison. The risk assessment connected with that is going to be horrendous. In fairness she would not be safe in a men's prison either.
    Sounds liek a despicable person at best , men's prison for me where HE can do less damage.
    And for longer than 5 years!
    Let's hope he/she is not less than 25 years old.

    Under new sentencing guidelines in Scotland people under the age of 25 are now not to be regarded as fully responsible for criminal actions. Apparently they are not mature enough and should be considered adolescents.

    https://www.itv.com/news/border/2022-01-26/new-scottish-guidance-for-sentencing-young-people-comes-into-effect

    NB. On the other hand, in the wonderful world of woke that is now Scotland, 16 year old adolescents will be regarded as adults for the purpose of changing their gender.

    It is like Alice in Wonderland up here just now
  • CorrectHorseBattery3CorrectHorseBattery3 Posts: 2,757
    edited January 2023

    Some good news, I don't have any stress fractures in my legs. More rehab, strengthening to come to try and overcome these shin splints.

    Which store did you buy the shin splints in?
    wut
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”

    [Thankfully this means the jury rejected the extraordinary argument from Bryson's KC that "if you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning ... that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges."]

    Key facts: this convicted rapist started transitioning in 2020 AFTER he raped two women in 2016 and 2019 with what was referred to in court as “her penis”

    But, no, it’ll never ever happen and women are crazy to fear that male sex offenders will cynically abuse a system that allows them to change their legal sex with barely any safeguards.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1617881626503155716

    The proposition that the KC, one of the most experienced at the Scottish bar, put forward in that case was little short of outrageous. I am relieved that the Jury were not misdirected from the real issue in the case, namely whether 2 very vulnerable young women had been raped.
    The general public appears to have remained sensible through all this, unlike some of their more excitable politicians....
    The problem though is what does the Scottish Prison Service do with this person for the next 5 or so years? She will no doubt want to go to a women's prison. The risk assessment connected with that is going to be horrendous. In fairness she would not be safe in a men's prison either.
    Sounds liek a despicable person at best , men's prison for me where HE can do less damage.
    And for longer than 5 years!
    Let's hope he/she is not less than 25 years old.

    Under new sentencing guidelines in Scotland people under the age of 25 are now not to be regarded as fully responsible for criminal actions. Apparently they are not mature enough and should be considered adolescents.

    https://www.itv.com/news/border/2022-01-26/new-scottish-guidance-for-sentencing-young-people-comes-into-effect

    NB. On the other hand, in the wonderful world of woke that is now Scotland, 16 year old adolescents will be regarded as adults for the purpose of changing their gender.

    It is like Alice in Wonderland up here just now
    Wasn't that to do with paedophilia rather than transgenderism?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,002
    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    Thankfully this is very much a one-off, and not at all representative of dozens hundreds of court cases, over decades, involving abuse of children in what’s somewhat euphemistically called “care”.

    It’s a massive scandal but the media ignore it, because it doesn’t fit their “narrative”.
    What narrative do you mean?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,765
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    Thankfully this is very much a one-off, and not at all representative of dozens hundreds of court cases, over decades, involving abuse of children in what’s somewhat euphemistically called “care”.

    It’s a massive scandal but the media ignore it, because it doesn’t fit their “narrative”.
    What narrative do you mean?
    Start with the “Rotherham” problem, with the long list of victims ignored by authorities, journalists, and politicians, over a droid of more than a decade.

    It took a very brave report from Andrew Norfolk at The Times, for the issue to be allowed to be discussed in polite society.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61868863.amp
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,404
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”

    [Thankfully this means the jury rejected the extraordinary argument from Bryson's KC that "if you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning ... that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges."]

    Key facts: this convicted rapist started transitioning in 2020 AFTER he raped two women in 2016 and 2019 with what was referred to in court as “her penis”

    But, no, it’ll never ever happen and women are crazy to fear that male sex offenders will cynically abuse a system that allows them to change their legal sex with barely any safeguards.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1617881626503155716

    The proposition that the KC, one of the most experienced at the Scottish bar, put forward in that case was little short of outrageous. I am relieved that the Jury were not misdirected from the real issue in the case, namely whether 2 very vulnerable young women had been raped.
    The general public appears to have remained sensible through all this, unlike some of their more excitable politicians....
    The problem though is what does the Scottish Prison Service do with this person for the next 5 or so years? She will no doubt want to go to a women's prison. The risk assessment connected with that is going to be horrendous. In fairness she would not be safe in a men's prison either.
    Sounds liek a despicable person at best , men's prison for me where HE can do less damage.
    And for longer than 5 years!
    Let's hope he/she is not less than 25 years old.

    Under new sentencing guidelines in Scotland people under the age of 25 are now not to be regarded as fully responsible for criminal actions. Apparently they are not mature enough and should be considered adolescents.

    https://www.itv.com/news/border/2022-01-26/new-scottish-guidance-for-sentencing-young-people-comes-into-effect

    NB. On the other hand, in the wonderful world of woke that is now Scotland, 16 year old adolescents will be regarded as adults for the purpose of changing their gender.

    It is like Alice in Wonderland up here just now
    The entire Scottish political establishment in in thrall to this now. Not just the SNP and Greens, but Labour and the LibDems who are desperate not to be outflanked on the "right on" agenda- although there are a few honourable exceptions such as the SNP minister who resigned. However she, and the few others who voted against, now have the unforgiving basilisk eye of Nicola on them.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,404

    Jersey has fallen to Woke. Thoughts and prayers.




    Maybe when Scotland becomes independent Jersey could apply to become a Scottish Crown Colony under Good Queen Nicola?
    I hadn’t realised that your repetitive predictions of Sturgeon going off to another job involved a throne.
    I like the ‘when’ instead of ‘if’, mind.
    Touch of irony. It's really not gonna happen is it?

    BTW - not sure I have been making "repetitive" predictions. Am resigned to her not going any time soon. Politicians usually need to be pushed and no sign of that despite mumblings in the ranks.
  • Stocky said:

    I feel like I'm banging on about this now but these Highway Code changes are bizarre. Reading up on it further:

    Rule 170 says "give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning". So if a car is not turning, i.e. going straight on, then the driver should not give way to a pedestrian?? Is the pedestrian to think "Hmm, did that car originate from right or left or did it come straight ahead?".

    What about roundabouts? Is the HC suggesting that drivers stop on a roundabout to give priority to a pedestrian round the corner?

    That rule makes sense to me, the way I understand it.

    So if you're looking to pull into, or out of, a road then you should give way to any pedestrians. But if you're going straight along a road without turning then you don't have to.

    A pedestrian can see if cars are going straight or turning.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,002
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    £250k pa per child.
    OFSTED rated "good".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792458

    Thankfully this is very much a one-off, and not at all representative of dozens hundreds of court cases, over decades, involving abuse of children in what’s somewhat euphemistically called “care”.

    It’s a massive scandal but the media ignore it, because it doesn’t fit their “narrative”.
    What narrative do you mean?
    Start with the “Rotherham” problem, with the long list of victims ignored by authorities, journalists, and politicians, over a droid of more than a decade.

    It took a very brave report from Andrew Norfolk at The Times, for the issue to be allowed to be discussed in polite society.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61868863.amp
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
    I don't see the link to this. Are you saying there's a media narrative that vulnerable children are never abused?
  • Has anyone tried an iron steamer?
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”

    [Thankfully this means the jury rejected the extraordinary argument from Bryson's KC that "if you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning ... that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges."]

    Key facts: this convicted rapist started transitioning in 2020 AFTER he raped two women in 2016 and 2019 with what was referred to in court as “her penis”

    But, no, it’ll never ever happen and women are crazy to fear that male sex offenders will cynically abuse a system that allows them to change their legal sex with barely any safeguards.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1617881626503155716

    The proposition that the KC, one of the most experienced at the Scottish bar, put forward in that case was little short of outrageous. I am relieved that the Jury were not misdirected from the real issue in the case, namely whether 2 very vulnerable young women had been raped.
    The general public appears to have remained sensible through all this, unlike some of their more excitable politicians....
    The problem though is what does the Scottish Prison Service do with this person for the next 5 or so years? She will no doubt want to go to a women's prison. The risk assessment connected with that is going to be horrendous. In fairness she would not be safe in a men's prison either.
    Logical solution for me is men's prison with protective solitary custody if that is required.
This discussion has been closed.