Apropos of nothing, just seen the 'awful' SATS questions that caused so much fuss. Cannot see the issue. Any good test will push all those being tested to their limit, that's the point. See for yourselves:
That doesn't seem terribly challenging. Yes, there is a fairly obvious, sort of decoy, answer to each question, but it separates out the good from the really good. Another lesson that initial outrage often subsides when you get the full background (for people who bother to get the full background)
My daughter tripped up on Question 8 - she went for crept in quietly. Squeezed in seems the obvious one, but she was put off squeezed by the picture, which showed a massive tent which you wouldn't really have had to squeeze into. But, we told her repeatedly, these tests are tests of the school, not of her, and the consequences of them to her are absolutely nil, and they are the same for everyone. And thus she didn't cry, she was mildly disappointed for a couple of minutes. The school tried very hard to get the kids to try their hardest, of course. But they also made clear it was just a test to see where they were up to, without any consequences for failure, and so really not anything to get stressed about.
To me the interesting thing is the unspoken assumption that everyone should be scoring 100%, and that something would be wrong otherwise. Perhaps to the degree that trauma was being inflicted.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, but that's not how testing used to work.
The other interesting thing was that the teachers were said to be finding these questions really challenging.
Or maybe they worried on behalf of their students how the students might interpret/answer the questions. A legitimate concern as evidenced by @Cookie.
Let me guess - you found them really easy. Which of course is not the point.
The article said
"Even staff "had to really think" about the answers, the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) said."
That implies that some teachers are as thick as mince
We should get better people in as teachers.
Ones who never have any issues with reading comprehension.
People like you.
Where did I ever claim to be a teacher, frankly if a teacher is struggling with those questions then they shouldn't be teaching
Quite right. Mr Pagan. But who are you going to replace them with?
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
China has done exceptionally well in lifting 800m out of poverty in 30 years. And without resorting to any messy “democracy”
This is the big challenge for the West. In the past we were not only freer and apparently happier, we were also economically (and hence militarily) stronger and more successful - as compared to old style Soviet bloc communism
It was no contest, really
China has changed that. China offers a model of state directed capitalism under one party rule which seems to offer economic success and military strength without annoying western liberal bollocks nor any meddling from whining human rights people. Quite appealing if you are a potential strongman in the Global South
I remain to be convinced that ordinary Chinese people actually like the CCP rather than simply being shrewd enough to keep their thoughts to themselves.
India has the Overseas Indian Citizenship. It’s a kind of quasi citizenship. For example, holders can’t vote or buy agricultural land. Weirdly, I am eligible.
Britain could do something similar. I don’t know how many people around the world can claim British ancestry, but it is obviously a lot. Half the world can probably claim a link with the Empire.
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
What with insulting Nick Palmer about 3 person Egyptian hotel rooms and now insulting an entire generation, you’re having quite a week OLB!
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think. For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
What I'm curious to know is your view of woke lefty champagne socialists. You've never given much away on that one.
Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.
Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:
- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect - Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth - Set more ambitious binding water quality targets
All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.
If you won't believe me listen to Bob:
"You say you never compromise With the mystery tramp but now you realise He's not selling any alibis As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
The UK 2023.
A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).
Fair enough. I do remember, however, the Rolling Stones doing an acoustic cover version of the song at Murrayfield many years ago. Absolutely magic.
I think the Stones covered this when I saw them last year too.
These days rolling is about the only way they can get on stage.
I'd be grateful to have half the energy of Mick Jagger, and he's almost twice my age. And Keith is in phenomenal shape, considering.
The BBC documentaries on each of the Stones were some of the best programs I saw last year. Keith's one stole the show though.
The Nick Broomfield doc on Brian Jones this week was interesting, sometimes moving and done in his usual quirky style. Not sure about Jones being an unrecognised genius though I know his musical virtuosity contributed a lot to early Stones. In some ways he looked like the archetypal Rolling Stone but Jones actually seemed very ill suited to the life - shy, paranoid, the butt of others' (incl. the Beatles) jokes, too insecure to show his songs to Keith and Mick. The letter from his judgmental father to him found after his death brought a bit of a lump to my throat.
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
What with insulting Nick Palmer about 3 person Egyptian hotel rooms and now insulting an entire generation, you’re having quite a week OLB!
Typical Gen Xer.
And I've caught Covid for the third time! It's not my week at all.
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
What I'm curious to know is your view of woke lefty champagne socialists. You've never given much away on that one.
Lefties, righties,muslims, christians etc are all made of groups that are made up of people that share a common ideology...on the subject of that ideology it is ok to address them as a group. But only on that ideology.
Boomers arent drawn from people that all believe in (from this example) covid denial therefore it is unfair to treat all boomers as one on this issue.
Now a group that are all drawn from covid deniers then yes it will be fair to treat them as a blob on the subject of covid denial.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think. For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.
Boomers are no more nuts than any other generation. The only issue is they have disproportionate political power, due to the fact they diligently vote.
If Millennials or GenZ did the same, and the Boomers did not, we'd very soon consider the former "nuts".
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Is that the same Commonwealth where most countries are republics OR have indigenous non-Windsor monarchies?
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"
Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
What I'm curious to know is your view of woke lefty champagne socialists. You've never given much away on that one.
Lefties, righties,muslims, christians etc are all made of groups that are made up of people that share a common ideology...on the subject of that ideology it is ok to address them as a group. But only on that ideology.
Boomers arent drawn from people that all believe in (from this example) covid denial therefore it is unfair to treat all boomers as one on this issue.
Now a group that are all drawn from covid deniers then yes it will be fair to treat them as a blob on the subject of covid denial.
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think. For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.
Boomers are no more nuts than any other generation. The only issue is they have disproportionate political power, due to the fact they diligently vote.
If Millennials or GenZ did the same, and the Boomers did not, we'd very soon consider the former "nuts".
Don't get me started on Millennials and GenZs. They really are nuts.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"
Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.
It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.
her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part
which bit of said it was a total win....succeeded only in part...not totally....in part. I guess you would be one of those struggling with the sat tests as you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between succeeding totally and succeeding partially
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
What I'm curious to know is your view of woke lefty champagne socialists. You've never given much away on that one.
Lefties, righties,muslims, christians etc are all made of groups that are made up of people that share a common ideology...on the subject of that ideology it is ok to address them as a group. But only on that ideology.
Boomers arent drawn from people that all believe in (from this example) covid denial therefore it is unfair to treat all boomers as one on this issue.
Now a group that are all drawn from covid deniers then yes it will be fair to treat them as a blob on the subject of covid denial.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
China has done exceptionally well in lifting 800m out of poverty in 30 years. And without resorting to any messy “democracy”
This is the big challenge for the West. In the past we were not only freer and apparently happier, we were also economically (and hence militarily) stronger and more successful - as compared to old style Soviet bloc communism
It was no contest, really
China has changed that. China offers a model of state directed capitalism under one party rule which seems to offer economic success and military strength without annoying western liberal bollocks nor any meddling from whining human rights people. Quite appealing if you are a potential strongman in the Global South
I remain to be convinced that ordinary Chinese people actually like the CCP rather than simply being shrewd enough to keep their thoughts to themselves.
Given China is a one-party state, a Chinese equivalent to PB would be thoroughly boring!
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
Yes, 'virtually the whole world was hyperbol'e, but are we really redoing the whole 'only 1/3 of the country watching it is not a lot' (or however many it was) debate again? That's no less hyperbole, and in fact is more so since it is trying to claim it was not a lot, rather than overplaying just how big it was.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"
Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.
It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.
her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part
which bit of said it was a total win....succeeded only in part...not totally....in part. I guess you would be one of those struggling with the sat tests as you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between succeeding totally and succeeding partially
you are arguing against things I didn't say. I literally said "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". It's right there. Scroll down. 5:54pm. See that? Nobody said "total win" apart from you, just now. You are completely barking. Honestly, you really are.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
Yes, 'virtually the whole world was hyperbol'e, but are we really redoing the whole 'only 1/3 of the country watching it is not a lot' (or however many it was) debate again? That's no less hyperbole, and in fact is more so since it is trying to claim it was not a lot, rather than overplaying just how big it was.
We have to be better than that.
My statement is not hyperbole though...I didn't claim not a lot I said not even most of, which is a statement of fact I think the figures were something around 20 to 25 million...is that a lot yes it is...it is however not most
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Is that the same Commonwealth where most countries are republics OR have indigenous non-Windsor monarchies?
Yes, you keep repeating this ad-nauseum as if it's some sort of killer point.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"
Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.
It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.
her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part
which bit of said it was a total win....succeeded only in part...not totally....in part. I guess you would be one of those struggling with the sat tests as you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between succeeding totally and succeeding partially
you are arguing against things I didn't say. I literally said "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". It's right there. Scroll down. 5:54pm. See that? Nobody said "total win" apart from you, just now. You are completely barking. Honestly, you really are.
You said and I will quote "Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest" no she didn't she partially won on that point and doesn't change the fact she was a lying hag from the start
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
China has done exceptionally well in lifting 800m out of poverty in 30 years. And without resorting to any messy “democracy”
This is the big challenge for the West. In the past we were not only freer and apparently happier, we were also economically (and hence militarily) stronger and more successful - as compared to old style Soviet bloc communism
It was no contest, really
China has changed that. China offers a model of state directed capitalism under one party rule which seems to offer economic success and military strength without annoying western liberal bollocks nor any meddling from whining human rights people. Quite appealing if you are a potential strongman in the Global South
I remain to be convinced that ordinary Chinese people actually like the CCP rather than simply being shrewd enough to keep their thoughts to themselves.
Given China is a one-party state, a Chinese equivalent to PB would be thoroughly boring!
"You slight OGH by doubting his devotion to the Party Line! Have you wokist kulaks (or visa versa) no shame?"
Just heard Guto Harri on Andrew Marr Programme. Fascinating scenario proposed of Starmer winning a minority election and requires (unstable) support from other parties. Sunak resigns. Johnson takes over as LOTO, after a short time Starmer Government falls and Johnson returns triumphant to Downing Street on the back of another magnificent election victory.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
A state funeral costs money. Even a "republican" one for the death of a well-known president. The only question is the RoI.
For something like HMQEII and the impression it made of Britain on the global stage I'd expect the soft power value return to be well over 100:1.
Clue: a business case is normally considered good if it's 2:1 or greater.
Just heard Guto Harri on Andrew Marr Programme. Fascinating scenario proposed of Starmer winning a minority election and requires (unstable) support from other parties. Sunak resigns. Johnson takes over as LOTO, after a short time Starmer Government falls and Johnson returns triumphant to Downing Street on the back of another magnificent election victory.
The YouGov figures for England are Labour 44%, Conservative 26% and Liberal Democrat 12%.
That's a 15.5% swing from Conservative to Labour and a 10.5% swing Conservative to Liberal Democrat so larger than some other polls this week. YouGov does seem to be trading the Conservatives lower but somebody on here once said they were the best with their sampling and weighing.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
A state funeral costs money. Even a "republican" one for the death of a well-known president. The only question is the RoI.
For something like HMQEII and the impression it made of Britain on the global stage I'd expect the soft power value return to be well over 100:1.
Clue: a business case is normally considered good if it's 2:1 or greater.
Then you will be able to detail return on investment totalling at least 320 million, shouldn't be hard if you estimate its actually 100 to 1
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Is that the same Commonwealth where most countries are republics OR have indigenous non-Windsor monarchies?
Yes, you keep repeating this ad-nauseum as if it's some sort of killer point.
Spoiler: it isn't.
Yes it is, only 15 Commonwealth members have Chuck has head of state.
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think. For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.
Good thing too OLB or I as a very sane Boomer would be most upset.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"
Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.
It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.
her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part
which bit of said it was a total win....succeeded only in part...not totally....in part. I guess you would be one of those struggling with the sat tests as you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between succeeding totally and succeeding partially
you are arguing against things I didn't say. I literally said "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". It's right there. Scroll down. 5:54pm. See that? Nobody said "total win" apart from you, just now. You are completely barking. Honestly, you really are.
You said and I will quote "Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest" no she didn't she partially won on that point and doesn't change the fact she was a lying hag from the start
"Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given." It's right there, literally right there in what I said. And the next sentence too: "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". What more do you need?
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"
Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
A state funeral costs money. Even a "republican" one for the death of a well-known president. The only question is the RoI.
For something like HMQEII and the impression it made of Britain on the global stage I'd expect the soft power value return to be well over 100:1.
Clue: a business case is normally considered good if it's 2:1 or greater.
I would guess that a large portion of the £162mn is things like the salaries of security personnel employed on the day, who are paid in any case - it is a cost attributable to the funeral in the sense that they weren't available for other duties, but doesn't reflect additional cash spending. In any case, I thought the wreath on HMQ's coffin was so beautiful I'd have paid £162mn for it alone. Money well spent, and the least we could do to repay a lifetime of service to our country.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
Bollocks does not even begin to describe how bollocksy it was
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think. For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.
Good thing too OLB or I as a very sane Boomer would be most upset.
Gulp. I certainly would not want to upset you, sir.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"
Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.
It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.
her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part
which bit of said it was a total win....succeeded only in part...not totally....in part. I guess you would be one of those struggling with the sat tests as you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between succeeding totally and succeeding partially
you are arguing against things I didn't say. I literally said "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". It's right there. Scroll down. 5:54pm. See that? Nobody said "total win" apart from you, just now. You are completely barking. Honestly, you really are.
You said and I will quote "Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest" no she didn't she partially won on that point and doesn't change the fact she was a lying hag from the start
"Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given." It's right there, literally right there in what I said. And the next sentence too: "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". What more do you need?
which part of the judgement saying "she partially won on the point of public defence" is giving you trouble.....it was not a total win....it was a partial....you know what I have run out of crayons trying to explain it to you....believe what you want no one cares about you trying to dance on the head of a pin
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Is that the same Commonwealth where most countries are republics OR have indigenous non-Windsor monarchies?
Yes, you keep repeating this ad-nauseum as if it's some sort of killer point.
Spoiler: it isn't.
Yes it is, only 15 Commonwealth members have Chuck has head of state.
So what Sunil?
That isn't an argument for what we do heree; even if we end up the only monarchy in the whole wide world.
The question is whether it works for us; it's not about following the crowd, which is a poor way to make any decision.
A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.
It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given. She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.
It's a decision I don't really understand.
Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.
Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.
"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"
Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.
It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.
her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part
which bit of said it was a total win....succeeded only in part...not totally....in part. I guess you would be one of those struggling with the sat tests as you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between succeeding totally and succeeding partially
you are arguing against things I didn't say. I literally said "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". It's right there. Scroll down. 5:54pm. See that? Nobody said "total win" apart from you, just now. You are completely barking. Honestly, you really are.
You said and I will quote "Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest" no she didn't she partially won on that point and doesn't change the fact she was a lying hag from the start
"Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given." It's right there, literally right there in what I said. And the next sentence too: "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". What more do you need?
which part of the judgement saying "she partially won on the point of public defence" is giving you trouble.....it was not a total win....it was a partial....you know what I have run out of crayons trying to explain it to you....believe what you want no one cares about you trying to dance on the head of a pin
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think. For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.
Good thing too OLB or I as a very sane Boomer would be most upset.
Not only sane, but now definitively eclipsed for the angriest man on PB title. Got to up your game.
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think. For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.
Good thing too OLB or I as a very sane Boomer would be most upset.
Not only sane, but now definitively eclipsed for the angriest man on PB title. Got to up your game.
Tim, I am at full Boom and at peace with the world , apart from the SNP and woke PC halfwits.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
A state funeral costs money. Even a "republican" one for the death of a well-known president. The only question is the RoI.
For something like HMQEII and the impression it made of Britain on the global stage I'd expect the soft power value return to be well over 100:1.
Clue: a business case is normally considered good if it's 2:1 or greater.
Then you will be able to detail return on investment totalling at least 320 million, shouldn't be hard if you estimate its actually 100 to 1
How would you quantify British soft power and our projection on the world stage? The type that gives us influence far in excess of our population or economic size, that leads global values, culture, investment and political decisions to shift in our direction over where they otherwise might be?
We can quibble over calculatiob method but over a couldn't give a toss work-a-day republican model it would be comfortably into the tens of billions.
I don't know why republicans persist with this "cost" argument: it's a really shit one.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Is that the same Commonwealth where most countries are republics OR have indigenous non-Windsor monarchies?
Yes, you keep repeating this ad-nauseum as if it's some sort of killer point.
Spoiler: it isn't.
Yes it is, only 15 Commonwealth members have Chuck has head of state.
That’s like mocking La Francophonie because Emmanuel Macron is only the head of state of Andorra.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
A state funeral costs money. Even a "republican" one for the death of a well-known president. The only question is the RoI.
For something like HMQEII and the impression it made of Britain on the global stage I'd expect the soft power value return to be well over 100:1.
Clue: a business case is normally considered good if it's 2:1 or greater.
Then you will be able to detail return on investment totalling at least 320 million, shouldn't be hard if you estimate its actually 100 to 1
How would you quantify British soft power and our projection on the world stage? The type that gives us influence far in excess of our population or economic size, that leads global values, culture, investment and political decisions to shift in our direction over where they otherwise might be?
We can quibble over calculatiob method but over a couldn't give a toss work-a-day republican model it would be comfortably into the tens of billions.
I don't know why republicans persist with this "cost" argument: it's a really shit one.
I am not a republican...I would keep monarchy purely because I think it is better than the alternatives. However I note you didn't rise to the challenge....if you claim that the roi is 100 to 1 then you should be able to detail 2% of that return surely. The fact you can't suggests its fictional.
I also don't buy that the monarchy is a major input to our tourist take which is always cited. I think if we had no monarchy the drop in tourism to london would not be in anyway measurable.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
A state funeral costs money. Even a "republican" one for the death of a well-known president. The only question is the RoI.
For something like HMQEII and the impression it made of Britain on the global stage I'd expect the soft power value return to be well over 100:1.
Clue: a business case is normally considered good if it's 2:1 or greater.
Then you will be able to detail return on investment totalling at least 320 million, shouldn't be hard if you estimate its actually 100 to 1
How would you quantify British soft power and our projection on the world stage? The type that gives us influence far in excess of our population or economic size, that leads global values, culture, investment and political decisions to shift in our direction over where they otherwise might be?
We can quibble over calculatiob method but over a couldn't give a toss work-a-day republican model it would be comfortably into the tens of billions.
I don't know why republicans persist with this "cost" argument: it's a really shit one.
I am not a republican...I would keep monarchy purely because I think it is better than the alternatives. However I note you didn't rise to the challenge....if you claim that the roi is 100 to 1 then you should be able to detail 2% of that return surely. The fact you can't suggests its fictional.
I also don't buy that the monarchy is a major input to our tourist take which is always cited. I think if we had no monarchy the drop in tourism to london would not be in anyway measurable.
Distressingly, I completely agree with you EDIT actually no, I am a republican. But I agree with you about the tourist take. People still visit former palaces in republics.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
A state funeral costs money. Even a "republican" one for the death of a well-known president. The only question is the RoI.
For something like HMQEII and the impression it made of Britain on the global stage I'd expect the soft power value return to be well over 100:1.
Clue: a business case is normally considered good if it's 2:1 or greater.
Then you will be able to detail return on investment totalling at least 320 million, shouldn't be hard if you estimate its actually 100 to 1
How would you quantify British soft power and our projection on the world stage? The type that gives us influence far in excess of our population or economic size, that leads global values, culture, investment and political decisions to shift in our direction over where they otherwise might be?
We can quibble over calculatiob method but over a couldn't give a toss work-a-day republican model it would be comfortably into the tens of billions.
I don't know why republicans persist with this "cost" argument: it's a really shit one.
I am not a republican...I would keep monarchy purely because I think it is better than the alternatives. However I note you didn't rise to the challenge....if you claim that the roi is 100 to 1 then you should be able to detail 2% of that return surely. The fact you can't suggests its fictional.
I also don't buy that the monarchy is a major input to our tourist take which is always cited. I think if we had no monarchy the drop in tourism to london would not be in anyway measurable.
Distressingly, I completely agree with you EDIT actually no, I am a republican. But I agree with you about the tourist take. People still visit former palaces in republics.
And, you are both wrong. Badly wrong.
But that doesn't matter, because what's going on here is pure cognitive dissonance.
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?
Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it
A state funeral costs money. Even a "republican" one for the death of a well-known president. The only question is the RoI.
For something like HMQEII and the impression it made of Britain on the global stage I'd expect the soft power value return to be well over 100:1.
Clue: a business case is normally considered good if it's 2:1 or greater.
Then you will be able to detail return on investment totalling at least 320 million, shouldn't be hard if you estimate its actually 100 to 1
How would you quantify British soft power and our projection on the world stage? The type that gives us influence far in excess of our population or economic size, that leads global values, culture, investment and political decisions to shift in our direction over where they otherwise might be?
We can quibble over calculatiob method but over a couldn't give a toss work-a-day republican model it would be comfortably into the tens of billions.
I don't know why republicans persist with this "cost" argument: it's a really shit one.
I am not a republican...I would keep monarchy purely because I think it is better than the alternatives. However I note you didn't rise to the challenge....if you claim that the roi is 100 to 1 then you should be able to detail 2% of that return surely. The fact you can't suggests its fictional.
I also don't buy that the monarchy is a major input to our tourist take which is always cited. I think if we had no monarchy the drop in tourism to london would not be in anyway measurable.
Distressingly, I completely agree with you EDIT actually no, I am a republican. But I agree with you about the tourist take. People still visit former palaces in republics.
And, you are both wrong. Badly wrong.
But that doesn't matter, because what's going on here is pure cognitive dissonance.
What, you think republics don't have former palaces that attract tourists?
I’ll now have to think of something to say on topic?
Um.
Rather Trump than DeSantis. You sense Trump only does it for money it can make him, and the massaging of his ego. He doesn’t actually believe any of the rubbish he comes out with, or the Q Anon rubbish of many of his supporters. None of them believe it, Trump, Tucker, Marg Greene, Alex Jones, they are all too intelligent. It makes them money, massages their ego.
DeSantis would do it for God.
We saw this when Trump was booed for telling the crowd to get vaccinated. Trouble is, if the president acts in a certain way, or stacks the Supreme Court, then whether he believes it or not is of academic interest (cf Boris and Brexit).
I believe everything in my first post, there’s more than enough footage of Democratic era Trump saying if he ran for President it would be as a Republican, becuase they are thick and wold buy into all his lies. Tucker too, had been caught on candid moments admitteing he doesn’t actually believe all the rubbish he comes out with. Alex Jones whole defence in court was “but that’s not me, what you see up there under the lights, that’s not me, that’s just acting.”
This is how I would answer the header, answer that Mike is spot on in his instincts. Things are different now, in how many people may want Trump policies, but now realise he is the very last person who can actually deliver Trump policies. That’s the fact that is the final nail in Trumps political coffin. And the same for Boris in UK. Like Trump there is no come back for Boris - even if you like his policies, you now know he’s incapable of delivering what he’s promising.
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think. For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.
Boomers are no more nuts than any other generation. The only issue is they have disproportionate political power, due to the fact they diligently vote.
If Millennials or GenZ did the same, and the Boomers did not, we'd very soon consider the former "nuts".
After travelling round the world for a fair old chunk of time, it is my formal conclusion that good people and arseholes are distributed remarkably well across race, creed, age, country etc.
Anyone who either puts such a group on a pedestal or damns them all is a fool.
Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.
You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?
No that had never occurred to me.
So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts
No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think. For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.
Boomers are no more nuts than any other generation. The only issue is they have disproportionate political power, due to the fact they diligently vote.
If Millennials or GenZ did the same, and the Boomers did not, we'd very soon consider the former "nuts".
After travelling round the world for a fair old chunk of time, it is my formal conclusion that good people and arseholes are distributed remarkably well across race, creed, age, country etc.
Anyone who either puts such a group on a pedestal or damns them all is a fool.
This is definitely true, OTOH different clusters of *dumb beliefs* are very specific to age groups and places. Some of the world has loads of people who are extremely racist, while simultaneously being very nice. And hardly anyone believes that if you leave the fan on overnight it'll blow all the oxygen out of the room and you'll die, except in Korea.
Old people believing stupid shit is definitely a real problem for societies all over the world, but the types of stupid shit they believe and the degree of damage that causes vary wildly.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65636772
No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.
Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info
https://twitter.com/curtly25486521/status/1659202307802943492?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
NO electricity
Typical Gen Xer.
For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.
Boomers arent drawn from people that all believe in (from this example) covid denial therefore it is unfair to treat all boomers as one on this issue.
Now a group that are all drawn from covid deniers then yes it will be fair to treat them as a blob on the subject of covid denial.
See the difference?
Broken, sleazy Tories and SNP on the slide!
If Millennials or GenZ did the same, and the Boomers did not, we'd very soon consider the former "nuts".
Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.
It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.
which bit of said it was a total win....succeeded only in part...not totally....in part. I guess you would be one of those struggling with the sat tests as you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between succeeding totally and succeeding partially
We have to be better than that.
You are completely barking. Honestly, you really are.
Spoiler: it isn't.
Just heard Guto Harri on Andrew Marr Programme. Fascinating scenario proposed of Starmer winning a minority election and requires (unstable) support from other parties. Sunak resigns. Johnson takes over as LOTO, after a short time Starmer Government falls and Johnson returns triumphant to Downing Street on the back of another magnificent election victory.
For something like HMQEII and the impression it made of Britain on the global stage I'd expect the soft power value return to be well over 100:1.
Clue: a business case is normally considered good if it's 2:1 or greater.
That's a 15.5% swing from Conservative to Labour and a 10.5% swing Conservative to Liberal Democrat so larger than some other polls this week. YouGov does seem to be trading the Conservatives lower but somebody on here once said they were the best with their sampling and weighing.
In any case, I thought the wreath on HMQ's coffin was so beautiful I'd have paid £162mn for it alone. Money well spent, and the least we could do to repay a lifetime of service to our country.
That isn't an argument for what we do heree; even if we end up the only monarchy in the whole wide world.
The question is whether it works for us; it's not about following the crowd, which is a poor way to make any decision.
We can quibble over calculatiob method but over a couldn't give a toss work-a-day republican model it would be comfortably into the tens of billions.
I don't know why republicans persist with this "cost" argument: it's a really shit one.
I also don't buy that the monarchy is a major input to our tourist take which is always cited. I think if we had no monarchy the drop in tourism to london would not be in anyway measurable.
EDIT actually no, I am a republican. But I agree with you about the tourist take. People still visit former palaces in republics.
NEW THREAD
this thread has had a TOTAL WIN in court and is now leaving to crowdfund its opponents' costs
But that doesn't matter, because what's going on here is pure cognitive dissonance.
Anyone who either puts such a group on a pedestal or damns them all is a fool.
Old people believing stupid shit is definitely a real problem for societies all over the world, but the types of stupid shit they believe and the degree of damage that causes vary wildly.