A row is brewing in Scotland, after a government-owned ferry service utilised a ‘tax loophole’ in Guernsey to reportedly avoid paying an estimated £35 million in National Insurance contributions.
CalMac Ferries is the main operator of vehicle ferries between Scotland and the islands on the west coast. It is wholly owned by the Scottish government.
It has been reported that the firm set up a subsidiary company in Guernsey called Caledonian MacBrayne Crewing. This company employs some 1,000 crew members and through this CalMac has been exempt from paying National Insurance contributions.
Ministers in Scotland have since been lambasted for allowing the scheme to exist, especially after CalMac received millions in covid support.
Channel Island tax havens, at last an area on which you have some first hand knowledge.
A cheap shot. As far as I know Carlotta is not a publicly funded corporation in receipt of millions of taxpayers money. CalMac is, and therefore tax avoidance on such a scale is simply outrageous.
Although it’s really left pocket right pocket? Assuming (and it’s NIC so this is important) the benefits that the employees get weren’t impacted it matters less - although it’s (presumably) an effective transfer from the UK government to the Scottish government (assuming - don’t know - that the UK government handles NICs nationwide)
There must have surely been a benefit to setting up a shell company otherwise they wouldn’t have gone to the effort of doing it.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
She did no such thing. Stanley Johnson beat his wife. Broke her nose. Put her in hospital. An allegation made by his now ex-wife. Not disputed by Stanley Johnson. And confirmed openly by his friends.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation: Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
The question I would be interested in is why this hasn't gone before a court, especially if its not denied?
"It only happened once" is not a defence, but in general "innocent until proven guilty" does apply and from the sound of it there's been no conviction. But why? Especially if its not denied?
We're back to basics of law: 1. Has a complaint been made? 2. If so do the police believe there is sufficient evidence 3. If so do the CPS wish to proceed with a prosecution
I'm not sure a complaint has been made. Which is a position that so many women find themselves in having been abused / assaulted. Point is that she has publicly stated that it happened and never mind a denial, we've had his friends confirm it happened.
So we're back to defamation. Which it isn't.
Can we have linkies (reputable sources) for these claims, please? E.g. "we've had his friends confirm it happened." I see lots of second-hand reports of these confirmations, but nothing on the record. I daresay you've got all the info, because you seem rather certain the allegations are true.
One thing about the Bruce/Johnson saga - who were the "friends" of Stanley Johnson the producer was going on about into Bruce's earpiece. The social media pile on on her is disgraceful, Carol Vorderman in particular should know better.
Vorderman has really diminished herself over the last couple of years.
Looks more like she has pumped herself up nowadays
Is our pet sock-puppet-master particularly well hidden at the moment or is he genuinely not posting? I feel a distinct lack of travelblogUFOdoomsaying today.
One thing about the Bruce/Johnson saga - who were the "friends" of Stanley Johnson the producer was going on about into Bruce's earpiece. The social media pile on on her is disgraceful, Carol Vorderman in particular should know better.
Carol Vorderman has a habit of being more enthusiastic than precise on Twitter.
For someone who rose to prominence for being able to use her brain, she does appear to have in recent years turned into someone very different.
Is our pet sock-puppet-master particularly well hidden at the moment or is he genuinely not posting? I feel a distinct lack of travelblogUFOdoomsaying today.
One thing about the Bruce/Johnson saga - who were the "friends" of Stanley Johnson the producer was going on about into Bruce's earpiece. The social media pile on on her is disgraceful, Carol Vorderman in particular should know better.
Vorderman has really diminished herself over the last couple of years.
I know her personally so if you let me know your name (and email address if you want) I'll pass your message on.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.
Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
Indeed.
Liz Truss had been vindicated by the economic data, and the Tory MPs should have rallied behind her, rather than bin her after only six weeks.
The economic data. Generated by Hunt rapidly binning her entire economic program. Is the proof that her binned economic program has worked.
?
That was indeed the argument for the Conservatives' "golden economic legacy" of the 1990s, which followed the complete collapse of the government's economic policy.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
Is our pet sock-puppet-master particularly well hidden at the moment or is he genuinely not posting? I feel a distinct lack of travelblogUFOdoomsaying today.
He isn't here. It's a clean thread.
I don't know how long the ban was for but I'm sure he's looking in. If for a long period he may be reduced to using one of his novelettish personas..
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Had no idea that history formed almost a quarter of teaching in England. Is that deliberate or a side effect of something else like not having enough science labs?
If only!
A quarter of the *History* curriculum...
@Theuniondivvie has every right to point and laugh at me for not phrasing my own post very happily...
Ah, thanks. Um. So it's 75% un-British history? Do Romans count as furrin or patriotic Brits?
Usually it's more than that, although it depends on the board.
The requirement for A-level history is 20% *must* be British history. Also that one unit *must* cover a minimum 100 year time span (No, I have no idea who thought that was a good idea either) and overall the course must cover 200 years or more chronologically (which is actually quite a good idea).
I also get lots from Muslim countries anxious to know more about Christianity in RS because of the requirement it must reflect British religious traditions being 'broadly Christian.'
Decades back there was a documentary following theology students abroad as they studied comparative religion. The imam they were currently with said he thought this as an excellent example, although as a follower of the true religion, he personally did not need to follow it.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Of course it's not right. It's a whole industry based on animal abuse.
Before the clunky mess of Facebook Horizon you'd have assumed FB/Meta would have a pretty good handle on this. Strike whie Elon is fucking Twitter up is still the play I guess.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Had no idea that history formed almost a quarter of teaching in England. Is that deliberate or a side effect of something else like not having enough science labs?
If only!
A quarter of the *History* curriculum...
@Theuniondivvie has every right to point and laugh at me for not phrasing my own post very happily...
Ah, thanks. Um. So it's 75% un-British history? Do Romans count as furrin or patriotic Brits?
Usually it's more than that, although it depends on the board.
The requirement for A-level history is 20% *must* be British history. Also that one unit *must* cover a minimum 100 year time span (No, I have no idea who thought that was a good idea either) and overall the course must cover 200 years or more chronologically (which is actually quite a good idea).
I also get lots from Muslim countries anxious to know more about Christianity in RS because of the requirement it must reflect British religious traditions being 'broadly Christian.'
Someone who remembers studying the Long Nineteenth Century at school?
Or that the Hundred Years War lasted 116 years?
Or the "Second Hundred Years War" of 1714 (Or 1689) to 1815? A niche concept but an interesting one.
Just creating Boris Johnson should be a bar to getting a bauble. Stanley Johnson should get nowt, and any current recipients of said bauble should be stripped of them, no new ones given out and any money saved given to a race horse sanctuary.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
Before the clunky mess of Facebook Horizon you'd have assumed FB/Meta would have a pretty good handle on this. Strike whie Elon is fucking Twitter up is still the play I guess.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
“ Credit Suisse has acknowledged "material weaknesses" in its internal controls as the scandal-hit Swiss bank released its annual report, which was delayed following queries from US regulators regarding its books.”
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I don't know but I asked our local wrens how they feel about cold mornings on -10C days and they didn't care for them. I think the government should do something about it.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
I don't know but I asked our local wrens how they feel about cold mornings on -10C days and they didn't care for them. I think the government should do something about it.
It's good you can communicate with your local wrens. Have you consulted the hens at your local egg production factory, see how they're feeling?
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
She did no such thing. Stanley Johnson beat his wife. Broke her nose. Put her in hospital. An allegation made by his now ex-wife. Not disputed by Stanley Johnson. And confirmed openly by his friends.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation: Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
The question I would be interested in is why this hasn't gone before a court, especially if its not denied?
"It only happened once" is not a defence, but in general "innocent until proven guilty" does apply and from the sound of it there's been no conviction. But why? Especially if its not denied?
Likely the victim declined to press charges. All too common back then, indeed now but less so.
Yes, we can't know exactly what % of the instances where a wife is hit ever touch the criminal justice system but it will be miniscule.
See also the data for complaints about Police violence published this morning.
Before the clunky mess of Facebook Horizon you'd have assumed FB/Meta would have a pretty good handle on this. Strike whie Elon is fucking Twitter up is still the play I guess.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
That's a very different question to whether there is medical evidence, or the claim that his friends said it happened.
I know nothing about the facts of the case, but just because one party says something happened doesn't mean it did, innocent until proven guilty.
But if it did happen, then he's a wife beater, even if its just the once.
I don't know but I asked our local wrens how they feel about cold mornings on -10C days and they didn't care for them. I think the government should do something about it.
It's good you can communicate with your local wrens. Have you consulted the hens at your local egg production factory, see how they're feeling?
They're complaining about being locked down to prevent virus spread.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I doubt if we can know. And I don't know about horse racing. What I do notice is that we have been better in recent times at stopping horses being killed and maimed in war than people, and that makes me both pleased and tragically sad at the same time.
“ Credit Suisse has acknowledged "material weaknesses" in its internal controls as the scandal-hit Swiss bank released its annual report, which was delayed following queries from US regulators regarding its books.”
I was doing some consultancy for Debit Suisse asset management, years back. They were very unhappy and eventually threw us out of the building.
This was because some of the graphs on the pricing system I built didn't come out well, at all. They pointed to the business gong down the drain, in about six months.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
Which is really all that was needed in the way of clarification - "a clear allegation of violence was made against him by his ex-wife, and has not been denied".
I don't see why the BBC need have given Bruce a script which included "only once".
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I doubt if we can know. And I don't know about horse racing. What I do notice is that we have been better in recent times at stopping horses being killed and maimed in war than people, and that makes me both pleased and tragically sad at the same time.
Isn't that just a consequence of no longer using horses in war (or for much else)? Not convinced that if Ukraine and Russia were using horse drawn supply lines that there wouldn't be just as much equine carnage as there was in WWI. Anyway as we hurtle back to the Stone Age we may get to test the proposition.
“ Credit Suisse has acknowledged "material weaknesses" in its internal controls as the scandal-hit Swiss bank released its annual report, which was delayed following queries from US regulators regarding its books.”
“ Credit Suisse has acknowledged "material weaknesses" in its internal controls as the scandal-hit Swiss bank released its annual report, which was delayed following queries from US regulators regarding its books.”
I was doing some consultancy for Debit Suisse asset management, years back. They were very unhappy and eventually threw us out of the building.
This was because some of the graphs on the pricing system I built didn't come out well, at all. They pointed to the business gong down the drain, in about six months.
Credit Suisse offering a 6.5% annual rate on new three-month deposits of $5 million or above - and a rate as high as 7% for one-year deposits — far above matched maturity Bills, and suggesting that to attract a client, the bank is forced to eat a GIANT loss. https://twitter.com/specht_julius/status/1631357911157858314
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
She did no such thing. Stanley Johnson beat his wife. Broke her nose. Put her in hospital. An allegation made by his now ex-wife. Not disputed by Stanley Johnson. And confirmed openly by his friends.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation: Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
The question I would be interested in is why this hasn't gone before a court, especially if its not denied?
"It only happened once" is not a defence, but in general "innocent until proven guilty" does apply and from the sound of it there's been no conviction. But why? Especially if its not denied?
Likely the victim declined to press charges. All too common back then, indeed now but less so.
Yes, we can't know exactly what % of the instances where a wife is hit ever touch the criminal justice system but it will be miniscule.
See also the data for complaints about Police violence published this morning.
I did see that. Tiny % leading to anything - and that's where it is reported.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
That's a very different question to whether there is medical evidence, or the claim that his friends said it happened.
I know nothing about the facts of the case, but just because one party says something happened doesn't mean it did, innocent until proven guilty.
But if it did happen, then he's a wife beater, even if its just the once.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
That's a very different question to whether there is medical evidence, or the claim that his friends said it happened.
I know nothing about the facts of the case, but just because one party says something happened doesn't mean it did, innocent until proven guilty.
But if it did happen, then he's a wife beater, even if its just the once.
*Legally* innocent until proved guilty.
This is true. But if the only evidence is an accusation, then there isn't any evidence.
“ Credit Suisse has acknowledged "material weaknesses" in its internal controls as the scandal-hit Swiss bank released its annual report, which was delayed following queries from US regulators regarding its books.”
I was doing some consultancy for Debit Suisse asset management, years back. They were very unhappy and eventually threw us out of the building.
This was because some of the graphs on the pricing system I built didn't come out well, at all. They pointed to the business gong down the drain, in about six months.
Credit Suisse offering a 6.5% annual rate on new three-month deposits of $5 million or above - and a rate as high as 7% for one-year deposits — far above matched maturity Bills, and suggesting that to attract a client, the bank is forced to eat a GIANT loss. https://twitter.com/specht_julius/status/1631357911157858314
It's Debit Suisse. If you ever think they aren't in the shit, then you've got COVID and you've lost your sense of smell.
My advice is to put your money in something solid - a triangular deal involving Mexican cocaine, stolen plutonium and a list of all the agents the CIA has ever had, perhaps?
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
That's a very different question to whether there is medical evidence, or the claim that his friends said it happened.
I know nothing about the facts of the case, but just because one party says something happened doesn't mean it did, innocent until proven guilty.
But if it did happen, then he's a wife beater, even if its just the once.
*Legally* innocent until proved guilty.
Which is what matters, legally.
Which is why normally in reporting that the term "allegedly" is normally used in abundance prior to a conviction. I don't know why "allegedly" wasn't the caveat added by Bruce instead of "only once" which is just bizarre, it doesn't matter if its once or a dozen times, once is enough.
“ Credit Suisse has acknowledged "material weaknesses" in its internal controls as the scandal-hit Swiss bank released its annual report, which was delayed following queries from US regulators regarding its books.”
I was doing some consultancy for Debit Suisse asset management, years back. They were very unhappy and eventually threw us out of the building.
This was because some of the graphs on the pricing system I built didn't come out well, at all. They pointed to the business gong down the drain, in about six months.
Credit Suisse offering a 6.5% annual rate on new three-month deposits of $5 million or above - and a rate as high as 7% for one-year deposits — far above matched maturity Bills, and suggesting that to attract a client, the bank is forced to eat a GIANT loss. https://twitter.com/specht_julius/status/1631357911157858314
It's Debit Suisse. If you ever think they aren't in the shit, then you've got COVID and you've lost your sense of smell.
My advice is to put your money in something solid - a triangular deal involving Mexican cocaine, stolen plutonium and a list of all the agents the CIA has ever had, perhaps?
Before the clunky mess of Facebook Horizon you'd have assumed FB/Meta would have a pretty good handle on this. Strike whie Elon is fucking Twitter up is still the play I guess.
They're bound to screw it up by making it hard to be anonymous.
You said anonymous in a thread about Meta/Farcebook
Ha ha ha ha ha
Zuckerberg *lives* to sell your private information.
I'm not sure that is entirely true. Look at WhatsApp, Facebook paid a fortune for it, and makes basically nothing off of it, as all they have access to is some limited metadata, but it created a barrier to entry for over-the-top messaging apps that might threaten Facebook itself.
A similar thing might apply to a Twitter competitor, give away a competent free rival to Twitter and you stop Twitter easily turning into a future Facebook competitor. We know Musk has some big ideas about cloning WeChat, Facebook would surely like to prevent that happening, even if it means running a Twitter-like service at a modest loss.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
It is not unheard of that an ex-partner makes false allegations.
These allegations are so serious they should be easy to corroborate with medical records.
The children would know if the marriage was abusive. Children always do.
I'd hesitate to take Boris' or Rachel's word for anything. But, I'd probably take Jo Johnson's word. (Jo Johnson has always struck me as the most intelligent and thoughtful of the Johnsons, admittedly not a high bar).
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
That's a very different question to whether there is medical evidence, or the claim that his friends said it happened.
I know nothing about the facts of the case, but just because one party says something happened doesn't mean it did, innocent until proven guilty.
But if it did happen, then he's a wife beater, even if its just the once.
*Legally* innocent until proved guilty.
Which is what matters, legally.
Which is why normally in reporting that the term "allegedly" is normally used in abundance prior to a conviction. I don't know why "allegedly" wasn't the caveat added by Bruce instead of "only once" which is just bizarre, it doesn't matter if its once or a dozen times, once is enough.
It should be pointed out that hospitalising someone 'only once' does not necessarily suggest that you assaulted them 'only once'. I will never understand why the BBC didn't take the opportunity to suspend both Bruce and Lineker for a week. It would have put a shot across the celebs' bows while giving a veneer of impartiality. That they didn't is ye more proof that the bunch running the BBC are useless at their jobs. Wonder what else they all have in common?
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
That's a very different question to whether there is medical evidence, or the claim that his friends said it happened.
I know nothing about the facts of the case, but just because one party says something happened doesn't mean it did, innocent until proven guilty.
But if it did happen, then he's a wife beater, even if its just the once.
*Legally* innocent until proved guilty.
Which is what matters, legally.
Which is why normally in reporting that the term "allegedly" is normally used in abundance prior to a conviction. I don't know why "allegedly" wasn't the caveat added by Bruce instead of "only once" which is just bizarre, it doesn't matter if its once or a dozen times, once is enough.
It should be pointed out that hospitalising someone 'only once' does not necessarily suggest that you assaulted them 'only once'. I will never understand why the BBC didn't take the opportunity to suspend both Bruce and Lineker for a week. It would have put a shot across the celebs' bows while giving a veneer of impartiality. That they didn't is ye more proof that the bunch running the BBC are useless at their jobs. Wonder what else they all have in common?
Suspending Bruce for relaying what she/a producer thought to be legally crucial information would have made the Lineker saga look very very minor.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
That's a very different question to whether there is medical evidence, or the claim that his friends said it happened.
I know nothing about the facts of the case, but just because one party says something happened doesn't mean it did, innocent until proven guilty.
But if it did happen, then he's a wife beater, even if its just the once.
*Legally* innocent until proved guilty.
Which is what matters, legally.
Which is why normally in reporting that the term "allegedly" is normally used in abundance prior to a conviction. I don't know why "allegedly" wasn't the caveat added by Bruce instead of "only once" which is just bizarre, it doesn't matter if its once or a dozen times, once is enough.
It should be pointed out that hospitalising someone 'only once' does not necessarily suggest that you assaulted them 'only once'. I will never understand why the BBC didn't take the opportunity to suspend both Bruce and Lineker for a week. It would have put a shot across the celebs' bows while giving a veneer of impartiality. That they didn't is ye more proof that the bunch running the BBC are useless at their jobs. Wonder what else they all have in common?
It is being alleged that they told her to say what she said, or something of the sort. Which means it would be ane even more massive row if they then suspended her.
“ Credit Suisse has acknowledged "material weaknesses" in its internal controls as the scandal-hit Swiss bank released its annual report, which was delayed following queries from US regulators regarding its books.”
I was doing some consultancy for Debit Suisse asset management, years back. They were very unhappy and eventually threw us out of the building.
This was because some of the graphs on the pricing system I built didn't come out well, at all. They pointed to the business gong down the drain, in about six months.
Credit Suisse offering a 6.5% annual rate on new three-month deposits of $5 million or above - and a rate as high as 7% for one-year deposits — far above matched maturity Bills, and suggesting that to attract a client, the bank is forced to eat a GIANT loss. https://twitter.com/specht_julius/status/1631357911157858314
My only bet today is in the 1:30 TAHMURAS. Though I think Mullins will win last 2 races so likely have a punt on that later, Tekao & Gaillard Du Mesnil.
Good morning.
I like Tahmuras, in my notebook with circle round after watching that impressive Tolworth win, good form since, and I did think of tipping as good e/w bet in this race - but is the reputation as winner leaning a little too much on that win, and should find the Irish raiders tough today I think.
Everyone seems to be on Gaillard Du Mesnil. I took a long look at it. Yes should go off favourite, the run in behind A Plus Tard was good class, but some while ago now, and there’s some unexposed horses in this stamina test. Mahler Mission has had a fine season, Mister Coffey recent form. GDM Should be in mix at this distance, but I didn’t see as a slam dunk for evens price.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
That's a very different question to whether there is medical evidence, or the claim that his friends said it happened.
I know nothing about the facts of the case, but just because one party says something happened doesn't mean it did, innocent until proven guilty.
But if it did happen, then he's a wife beater, even if its just the once.
*Legally* innocent until proved guilty.
Which is what matters, legally.
Which is why normally in reporting that the term "allegedly" is normally used in abundance prior to a conviction. I don't know why "allegedly" wasn't the caveat added by Bruce instead of "only once" which is just bizarre, it doesn't matter if its once or a dozen times, once is enough.
It should be pointed out that hospitalising someone 'only once' does not necessarily suggest that you assaulted them 'only once'. I will never understand why the BBC didn't take the opportunity to suspend both Bruce and Lineker for a week. It would have put a shot across the celebs' bows while giving a veneer of impartiality. That they didn't is ye more proof that the bunch running the BBC are useless at their jobs. Wonder what else they all have in common?
Suspending Bruce for relaying what she/a producer thought to be legally crucial information would have made the Lineker saga look very very minor.
Something said on air, on a pre-recorded programme, is squarely on the broadcaster. They have producers and lawyers on staff. See numerous instances of comedians saying outrageous things. It’s why HIGNFY, Mock The Week and so on, are recorded the day before broadcast.
This was tightened up after Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross embarrased the Corporation.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
One thing about the Bruce/Johnson saga - who were the "friends" of Stanley Johnson the producer was going on about into Bruce's earpiece. The social media pile on on her is disgraceful, Carol Vorderman in particular should know better.
Vorderman has really diminished herself over the last couple of years.
I know her personally so if you let me know your name (and email address if you want) I'll pass your message on.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
I asked if the horses enjoy it.
Some argue that racing puts the horses at risk of injury or even death, while others believe that horses can be trained to enjoy racing as a form of exercise and competition.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
I asked if the horses enjoy it.
Some argue that racing puts the horses at risk of injury or even death, while others believe that horses can be trained to enjoy racing as a form of exercise and competition.
I'd say both were true.
They'd probably enjoy skiing too but that might be a bit too much.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
I asked if the horses enjoy it.
Some argue that racing puts the horses at risk of injury or even death, while others believe that horses can be trained to enjoy racing as a form of exercise and competition.
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
That's a very different question to whether there is medical evidence, or the claim that his friends said it happened.
I know nothing about the facts of the case, but just because one party says something happened doesn't mean it did, innocent until proven guilty.
But if it did happen, then he's a wife beater, even if its just the once.
Two entirely different things. Stanley Johnson's wife has made a detailed statement that he is a wife-beater. AIUI He has never responded to these rather old allegations, either to confirm or deny them. AIFUI his various friends have been quoted by various media sources confirming that he did break his wife's nose as she alleges.
1. Legally Stanley Johnson is innocent of assaulting his wife. No complaint made, no charge made, no trial, no conviction, no case to answer 2. It is not defamation to state "Stanley Johnson is a wife-beater" based on the various evidential statements made and the lack of a denial over an elongated period. A defence of truth, of honest opinion, and of public interest would be made by YAB should he go after her after her Question Time statement.
You can be legally innocent of a crime whether you did it or not.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
This is what you get:
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
"Some people may believe that the benefits of exterminating Jews outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the practice is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate ..."
I know it’s the Mail, but astonishing story if true: Russia is now sending women prisoners to the front lines in Ukraine, having run out of men and seemingly unwilling to conscript any more. They’re also dragging tanks out of museums and war memorials.
Yes. The going is officially soft. When I launched my “vampire theory” of last years record breaking heat sucking all moisture out of UK water table like a vampire, by saying ignore official going, the water table still is so thirsty, if they say it’s soft it might turnout faster than that - I didn’t think it would very controversial. But let’s see what experts say as the afternoon wears on.
I’m not over selling it by saying we are guaranteed drama. It’s a day of fascinating battles.
Constitution Hill v State Man - only one can win Jonbon v El Fabiolo - only one can win Marie’s Rock v everything else in her race 🫣
Here’s my win bet for today. If you read my bit of header, no surprises.
1.30 - Il Etait Temps 2.10 - El Fabiolo 3.30 - State Man 4.10 - Love Envoi
If first races to report back a bit better than soft going, I do think Vauban comes more into picture at longer odds, Perseus way too later in the day, for your e/w bets.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
"Some people may believe that the benefits of exterminating Jews outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the practice is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate ..."
If we want to get really controversial..
"Some people may believe that the benefits of pineapple on pizza outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the practice is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate ..."
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
I asked if the horses enjoy it.
Some argue that racing puts the horses at risk of injury or even death, while others believe that horses can be trained to enjoy racing as a form of exercise and competition.
I'd say both were true.
There's an order of magnitude difference in the risks to horses between flat and jump racing.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Of course it's not right. It's a whole industry based on animal abuse.
Itd be ok if we ate the losers. That's what I call incentive.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
I asked if the horses enjoy it.
Some argue that racing puts the horses at risk of injury or even death, while others believe that horses can be trained to enjoy racing as a form of exercise and competition.
I'd say both were true.
There's an order of magnitude difference in the risks to horses between flat and jump racing.
Just as there's an order of magnitude difference between racing horses and murdering Jews.
Horse races aren't really my thing, but I have no objection to them morally. If horses were more tasty I'd have absolutely no qualms in eating them, so I'm not going to object to others engaging in races.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
"Some people may believe that the benefits of exterminating Jews outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the practice is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate ..."
Some sides can be very swiftly considered and dismissed, admittedly.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
This is what you get:
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
Hmm, a career in diplomacy or, possibly, politics beckons for ChatGPT?
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Of course it's not right. It's a whole industry based on animal abuse.
Itd be ok if we ate the losers. That's what I call incentive.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
This is what you get:
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
Hmm, a career in diplomacy or, possibly, politics beckons for ChatGPT?
It should be no surprise that ChatGPT - a machine that produces statistically plausible babble in authoritative style, based on simple stimulus phrases, and no understanding of context - sounds like a politician trained to produce plausible and authoritative babble based on limited-to-no understanding of context.
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
Yes. The going is officially soft. When I launched my “vampire theory” of last years record breaking heat sucking all moisture out of UK water table like a vampire, by saying ignore official going, the water table still is so thirsty, if they say it’s soft it might turnout faster than that - I didn’t think it would very controversial. But let’s see what experts say as the afternoon wears on.
I’m not over selling it by saying we are guaranteed drama. It’s a day of fascinating battles.
Constitution Hill v State Man - only one can win Jonbon v El Fabiolo - only one can win Marie’s Rock v everything else in her race 🫣
Here’s my win bet for today. If you read my bit of header, no surprises.
1.30 - Il Etait Temps 2.10 - El Fabiolo 3.30 - State Man 4.10 - Love Envoi
If first races to report back a bit better than soft going, I do think Vauban comes more into picture at longer odds, Perseus way too later in the day, for your e/w bets.
Good luck with your own betting today. 🙂
Thanks, I’ve followed you in with 4 singles & an Acca.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
This is what you get:
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
The relentless insistence that a matter of morality is "up to the relevant authorities" strikes me as rather "authoritarian". Perhaps if ChatGPT's education had been more complete it might have noted that some people thought that the honours system itself was not morally right.
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
That seems like an even worse format. It adds an extra game so the semi-finalists will play 8 games, and by incorporating third-placed teams it still allows for collusion.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Of course it's not right. It's a whole industry based on animal abuse.
Itd be ok if we ate the losers. That's what I call incentive.
A similar thing might apply to a Twitter competitor, give away a competent free rival to Twitter and you stop Twitter easily turning into a future Facebook competitor. We know Musk has some big ideas about cloning WeChat, Facebook would surely like to prevent that happening, even if it means running a Twitter-like service at a modest loss.
Twitter had 7000 employees before Trussk bought it. It now has 2000.
So there are enough people who have left twitter to completely staff a competitor, twice over...
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
All they had to do was say 12 group winners and four best runners up (probably two from the first six groups and two from the second six groups to help with scheduling) and it would have been fine.
This is a classic case of getting want you want through the backdoor. The reason why they went with 16 groups of three was to maintain the same number of matches for the finalists, which was a demand of the clubs. Well, guess what, FIFA have got what they wanted anyway through the "there's no other option route".
Some people with lapsed SNP memberships have been handed a vote in the leadership contest - as fresh fears were raised that the ballot could be ‘rigged’.
ChatGPT says it can't play chess but I'm 7 moves deep with it's first suggestion and it's still going...
One thing we know computers are really, really good at, is playing chess. My phone can play at International Master level offline, and a decent computer will beat Magnus any day of the week.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
This is what you get:
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
The relentless insistence that a matter of morality is "up to the relevant authorities" strikes me as rather "authoritarian". Perhaps if ChatGPT's education had been more complete it might have noted that some people thought that the honours system itself was not morally right.
More concerning might be an AI which didn't believe in authority ?
This is unusually deranged even for Trump. Does he really imagine the typical MAGA dude empathizing with the plight of a presidential candidate caught for paying $130k in hush money to a porn star or a ex-president caught stealing nuclear secrets? https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1635619567924903936
(Pretty sure this is not Trump, but it's quite funny.)
This is unusually deranged even for Trump. Does he really imagine the typical MAGA dude empathizing with the plight of a presidential candidate caught for paying $130k in hush money to a porn star or a ex-president caught stealing nuclear secrets? https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1635619567924903936
(Pretty sure this is not Trump, but it's quite funny.)
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
All they had to do was say 12 group winners and four best runners up (probably two from the first six groups and two from the second six groups to help with scheduling) and it would have been fine.
This is a classic case of getting want you want through the backdoor. The reason why they went with 16 groups of three was to maintain the same number of matches for the finalists, which was a demand of the clubs. Well, guess what, FIFA have got what they wanted anyway through the "there's no other option route".
No, the reason they are doing it that way is they want all the big teams qualifying for the second round.
Comments
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/11/meta_twitter_rival/?utm_medium=share&utm_content=article&utm_source=twitter
They held an apple and a banana in front of the monkeys, saying "if you would like to go into space, take the banana, otherwise take the apple".
Worked remarkably well
“ Credit Suisse has acknowledged "material weaknesses" in its internal controls as the scandal-hit Swiss bank released its annual report, which was delayed following queries from US regulators regarding its books.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/14/silicon-valley-bank-news-latest-ftse-100-markets-live-jeremy/
Ha ha ha ha ha
Zuckerberg *lives* to sell your private information.
I know nothing about the facts of the case, but just because one party says something happened doesn't mean it did, innocent until proven guilty.
But if it did happen, then he's a wife beater, even if its just the once.
I was doing some consultancy for Debit Suisse asset management, years back. They were very unhappy and eventually threw us out of the building.
This was because some of the graphs on the pricing system I built didn't come out well, at all. They pointed to the business gong down the drain, in about six months.
Six months later....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aberdeen-creditsuisse-idUSTRE4BU1PY20081231
I don't see why the BBC need have given Bruce a script which included "only once".
Anyway as we hurtle back to the Stone Age we may get to test the proposition.
Credit Suisse offering a 6.5% annual rate on new three-month deposits of $5 million or above - and a rate as high as 7% for one-year deposits — far above matched maturity Bills, and suggesting that to attract a client, the bank is forced to eat a GIANT loss.
https://twitter.com/specht_julius/status/1631357911157858314
And this, yesterday.
CREDIT SUISSE’S DEFAULT SWAPS HIT NEW ALL TIME HIGH
https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1635314294710759424
My advice is to put your money in something solid - a triangular deal involving Mexican cocaine, stolen plutonium and a list of all the agents the CIA has ever had, perhaps?
Which is why normally in reporting that the term "allegedly" is normally used in abundance prior to a conviction. I don't know why "allegedly" wasn't the caveat added by Bruce instead of "only once" which is just bizarre, it doesn't matter if its once or a dozen times, once is enough.
Cramer is bullish on Credit Suisse
https://twitter.com/runews/status/1635530781559861248
A similar thing might apply to a Twitter competitor, give away a competent free rival to Twitter and you stop Twitter easily turning into a future Facebook competitor. We know Musk has some big ideas about cloning WeChat, Facebook would surely like to prevent that happening, even if it means running a Twitter-like service at a modest loss.
These allegations are so serious they should be easy to corroborate with medical records.
The children would know if the marriage was abusive. Children always do.
I'd hesitate to take Boris' or Rachel's word for anything. But, I'd probably take Jo Johnson's word. (Jo Johnson has always struck me as the most intelligent and thoughtful of the Johnsons, admittedly not a high bar).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11856311/Fiona-Bruce-hung-dry-BBC-bosses-accused-trivialising-domestic-abuse.html
I like Tahmuras, in my notebook with circle round after watching that impressive Tolworth win, good form since, and I did think of tipping as good e/w bet in this race - but is the reputation as winner leaning a little too much on that win, and should find the Irish raiders tough today I think.
Everyone seems to be on Gaillard Du Mesnil. I took a long look at it. Yes should go off favourite, the run in behind A Plus Tard was good class, but some while ago now, and there’s some unexposed horses in this stamina test. Mahler Mission has had a fine season, Mister Coffey recent form. GDM Should be in mix at this distance, but I didn’t see as a slam dunk for evens price.
This was tightened up after Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross embarrased the Corporation.
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/14/transgender-woman-raped-friend-weeks-released-prison-child-sex/
Some argue that racing puts the horses at risk of injury or even death, while others believe that horses can be trained to enjoy racing as a form of exercise and competition.
I'd say both were true.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
1. Legally Stanley Johnson is innocent of assaulting his wife. No complaint made, no charge made, no trial, no conviction, no case to answer
2. It is not defamation to state "Stanley Johnson is a wife-beater" based on the various evidential statements made and the lack of a denial over an elongated period. A defence of truth, of honest opinion, and of public interest would be made by YAB should he go after her after her Question Time statement.
You can be legally innocent of a crime whether you did it or not.
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
Betting Post 🐎
Here’s your Racing Weather. Note how chilly it is, and timing of rain Wednesday.
https://www.yr.no/nb/værvarsel/graf/2-2653261/Storbritannia/England/Gloucestershire/Cheltenham
Yes. The going is officially soft.
When I launched my “vampire theory” of last years record breaking heat sucking all moisture out of UK water table like a vampire, by saying ignore official going, the water table still is so thirsty, if they say it’s soft it might turnout faster than that - I didn’t think it would very controversial. But let’s see what experts say as the afternoon wears on.
I’m not over selling it by saying we are guaranteed drama. It’s a day of fascinating battles.
Constitution Hill v State Man - only one can win
Jonbon v El Fabiolo - only one can win
Marie’s Rock v everything else in her race 🫣
Here’s my win bet for today. If you read my bit of header, no surprises.
1.30 - Il Etait Temps
2.10 - El Fabiolo
3.30 - State Man
4.10 - Love Envoi
If first races to report back a bit better than soft going, I do think Vauban comes more into picture at longer odds, Perseus way too later in the day, for your e/w bets.
Good luck with your own betting today. 🙂
"Some people may believe that the benefits of pineapple on pizza outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the practice is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate ..."
I’m on Oscar elite at 14/1 & laskalin at 50/1
These are not betting tips.
But if you do fancy a bet, going e/w on a horse the 2.50 with one of the more generous bookies ain’t the worst idea.
Sky bet go 1/5 odds, 8 places. BF sportsbook, 1/5 odds, 7 places.
Horse races aren't really my thing, but I have no objection to them morally. If horses were more tasty I'd have absolutely no qualms in eating them, so I'm not going to object to others engaging in races.
Though the Swiss have the wherewithal to bail it out, if they so choose.
Perhaps it's already been posted here, but this is a striking illustration of the importance of nurture over nature for AI:
https://odysee.com/@PaulJosephWatson:5/we-have-a-problem.:a
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
https://news.sky.com/story/fifa-world-cup-to-have-40-more-matches-in-2026-12833518
Small stakes.
So there are enough people who have left twitter to completely staff a competitor, twice over...
This is a classic case of getting want you want through the backdoor. The reason why they went with 16 groups of three was to maintain the same number of matches for the finalists, which was a demand of the clubs. Well, guess what, FIFA have got what they wanted anyway through the "there's no other option route".
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1635611101432881154?s=20
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1635619567924903936
(Pretty sure this is not Trump, but it's quite funny.)