🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
OT I'm slowly throwing away around 2,000 books, in the course of which I've just noticed this business book called Avoiding Adversity has a chapter on Fixed Cost Reduction Through Remote Working, from 1989. Nothing new etc.
If anyone knows where to buy boxes suitable for posting about 2 feet of books, please let me know. Weight might mean using several smaller boxes, come to think of it, but where are they sold?
Removal firms, or storage places
I don't know if they will do 2 feet of books, but I moved house using Banana Boxes from the tills at Morrisons.
OT I'm slowly throwing away around 2,000 books, in the course of which I've just noticed this business book called Avoiding Adversity has a chapter on Fixed Cost Reduction Through Remote Working, from 1989. Nothing new etc.
If anyone knows where to buy boxes suitable for posting about 2 feet of books, please let me know. Weight might mean using several smaller boxes, come to think of it, but where are they sold?
Removal firms, or storage places
Try stationery firms such as Viking Direct (online) for a selection. The quality of the boxes and their purpose does vary (as one would expect). They'll have other packing stuff such as tape and brown paper, and free carriage over £30 or so?
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
I don't know enough of the science to answer that question.
I do know that far more by way of skills and habits and emotional states is inherited than we previously assumed, in both people and animals. People come hard-wired for language, for example.
I will always remember the first time my dog saw sheep; he must have been about four or five months old and
a) As I noted yday, a study showed that a third of households now have dogs. Extraordinary. Plenty bought during lockdown where they weren't able to socialise, and if there were no children or dogs or plenty of visitors (def not that last) in the household then will not be socialised to children or other dogs and fiercely protecting their domain from strangers.
It is no surprise that these dogs are now going rogue, of whatever breed.
b) Why on earth would the Cons bring forward the election from the latest possible date. If they are due for a malleting now why wouldn't they wait to see if events.
c) Korea is one of the most impenetrable (as a foreigner) place I have been. Seoul is fine, I went skiing there (not in Seoul!) and that's pretty grim not even up to 70s French resort with its moulded plastic seating and everything closing at 7pm.
My guess yesterday that every third person seems to have a dog now was right in that case.
Getting on for half of UK households have a pet of some sort, and getting on for third have a dog (maybe post covid it has now topped a third?). Higher in the countryside and lower in the cities, and otherwise pretty evenly distributed across the country, marginally higher in the south ex London as I recall, but that may just be the fewer large cities
One third of households own dogs. Sorry, but I don't believe that, and yes, I can Google surveys that show it but one third does not pass the smell test. First, I don't see very many dogs being walked on the streets or in the park; second, there is not enough shelf space for dog food in the supermarket.
'Suella Braverman is pushing for a ban on American bully XL dogs, arguing they are a “clear and lethal danger”, particularly to children.
The home secretary announced she has commissioned urgent advice on outlawing the dogs after she highlighted an “appalling” attack on an 11-year-old girl in Birmingham.
However, adding dogs to the banned list is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey. The PA news agency understands there are concerns within Defra over the feasibility of adding the American bully.'
The idea Coffey would overrule Braverman on this is laughable.
Braverman will have got Sunak's approval for this popular ban, civil servants will do what the elected government tells them to do and most MPs would also almost certainly vote it into law
What makes you think Braverman has Sunak’s approval?
She’s quite clearly politicking to be her successor by parking her tanks on someone else’s lawn. If Sunak had any authority he’d slap her down. But he doesn’t have that power.
Ms Braverman got lots of publicity over cats - cat lessons, not her dept at all.
Now it's dogs.
What next, gerbils or newts?
If she's talking about banning the breed, then it's not her dept at all. She can't override a fellow minister, as HYUFD seems to think - but he thought yesterday that just because Ms Braverman said she wanted X that meant it has already happened as ordered by the PM.
There may be scope within the HO for non-breed based solutions for what is a real problem - insurance, and so on - and those to my mind have more merit. But those would impact some, or all, other dogs. And, of course, there are existing laws on reckless behaviour.
Loving your insouciance about kids being mauled.
I'm concerned what she is doing won't stop it in future. Or even now.
Is a line which will take some beating on PB today.
My favourite was a leopard that I befriended - or he befriended me - in a tiny remote camp in South Luangwa NP in Zambia
He became so used to us he would saunter casually past the camp at twilight. Looking suave and debonair, a flaneur of the bush
I nicknamed him “Evelyn”
I was honestly less scared of him than I would be of an unleashed bully dog in Primrose Hill. He was no threat to any human (unless you went up to him and slapped him)
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
Ditching the triple lock would be a victory for the rich over the poor. Our state pension is not generous at £10,000 a year. Note those calling for the triple lock to go are mostly quite happy to retain higher rate tax relief on contributions, again favouring the rich over the poor.
I'd be inclined to ban people having these killer dogs but it's not a no brainer. It needs careful thought. Eg if you did that where would they go? Would they not be even more dangerous roaming around without an owner?
I wonder what the Venn diagrams looks like for support for banning dangerous dogs and banning guns?
I would have expected the overlap would be close to 100%. The arguments seem almost exactly the same to me. The only reason (and it is a compelling one) for not banning either is the general principle that government should try to intervene as little as possible. But if we accept the argument that there are potentially dangerous things which we would rather the population did not own, guns and certain breeds of aggressive dogs both strike me as quite close to the top of the list.
FWIW, up until about a year ago I thought this issue had been solved with the dangerous dogs act. My circle of acquaintances was very middle class and this was honestly an issue which I never encountered. As a result of junior football I spend a lot more time with people who live in the less salubrious parts of town, where the presence of dogs like these are a major concern. (But their owners must walk them almost solely around the council estates on which they live; you never see them in the parks and open spaces which I and my middle class bubble tend to frequent.)
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
A few times since he's got in with sheep or goats when I've not spotted that they're about quick enough, and he just rounds them up and runs them around the field. The more difficult stuff such as getting them into an enclosure likely does have to be taught.
I'd say you need to watch that. It sounds close to, or over, the line.
Under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, if a dog worries sheep on agricultural land, the person in charge of the dog is guilty of an offence. The Act considers sheep worrying to include attacking sheep, chasing them in a way that may cause injury, suffering, abortion or loss of produce or being at large (not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep. https://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/for-the-public/culture/sheep-worrying/sheep-worrying/2457/staying-legal-in-england-and-wales/
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
I don't know enough of the science to answer that question.
I do know that far more by way of skills and habits and emotional states is inherited than we previously assumed, in both people and animals. People come hard-wired for language, for example.
I will always remember the first time my dog saw sheep; he must have been about four or five months old and
a) As I noted yday, a study showed that a third of households now have dogs. Extraordinary. Plenty bought during lockdown where they weren't able to socialise, and if there were no children or dogs or plenty of visitors (def not that last) in the household then will not be socialised to children or other dogs and fiercely protecting their domain from strangers.
It is no surprise that these dogs are now going rogue, of whatever breed.
b) Why on earth would the Cons bring forward the election from the latest possible date. If they are due for a malleting now why wouldn't they wait to see if events.
c) Korea is one of the most impenetrable (as a foreigner) place I have been. Seoul is fine, I went skiing there (not in Seoul!) and that's pretty grim not even up to 70s French resort with its moulded plastic seating and everything closing at 7pm.
My guess yesterday that every third person seems to have a dog now was right in that case.
Getting on for half of UK households have a pet of some sort, and getting on for third have a dog (maybe post covid it has now topped a third?). Higher in the countryside and lower in the cities, and otherwise pretty evenly distributed across the country, marginally higher in the south ex London as I recall, but that may just be the fewer large cities
One third of households own dogs. Sorry, but I don't believe that, and yes, I can Google surveys that show it but one third does not pass the smell test. First, I don't see very many dogs being walked on the streets or in the park; second, there is not enough shelf space for dog food in the supermarket.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
I think that you are right, the economy is thriving at the moment
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
I think that you are right, the economy is thriving at the moment
There is a media driven sense of doom that doesn't match everyone's experience. For many people the CoL crisis is real and times are hard. For a lot of other people there are plenty of jobs, the cricket was great, the rugby WC has just started, pay rises are coming through and the UK isn't actually suffering catastrophe, despite what Stephen Fry thinks.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Why has this post got 3 likes? Everyone must know that some dogs are deliberately bred for aggression.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
The *paper* economy is in rude health, and this manufacturing data is more proof of that. But in the real economy, most manufacturers will snort at the news about how buoyant things are, and most workers in whatever the sector continue to be painfully squeezed.
None of this is new - the disconnect between the official stats and reality has been growing for a while. It is odd though that stats are either a Tory triumph (Nerys this morning) or remoaner lies (the OBR) depending on what they say. Its statistics - its always wrong. Especially when they are right.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
I think that you are right, the economy is thriving at the moment
There is a media driven sense of doom that doesn't match everyone's experience. For many people the CoL crisis is real and times are hard. For a lot of other people there are plenty of jobs, the cricket was great, the rugby WC has just started, pay rises are coming through and the UK isn't actually suffering catastrophe, despite what Stephen Fry thinks.
That is always the case, even in the depths of recesssion some places and people and sectors are living their best lives.
The problem for the Tories is that in the current economy more places and people and sectors are being hammered than the people doing well. That the winners are doing so well as to bend the statistics and have Tories sneering about how great things are is a big part of the problem.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
A few times since he's got in with sheep or goats when I've not spotted that they're about quick enough, and he just rounds them up and runs them around the field. The more difficult stuff such as getting them into an enclosure likely does have to be taught.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
I don't know enough of the science to answer that question.
I do know that far more by way of skills and habits and emotional states is inherited than we previously assumed, in both people and animals. People come hard-wired for language, for example.
I will always remember the first time my dog saw sheep; he must have been about four or five months old and
a) As I noted yday, a study showed that a third of households now have dogs. Extraordinary. Plenty bought during lockdown where they weren't able to socialise, and if there were no children or dogs or plenty of visitors (def not that last) in the household then will not be socialised to children or other dogs and fiercely protecting their domain from strangers.
It is no surprise that these dogs are now going rogue, of whatever breed.
b) Why on earth would the Cons bring forward the election from the latest possible date. If they are due for a malleting now why wouldn't they wait to see if events.
c) Korea is one of the most impenetrable (as a foreigner) place I have been. Seoul is fine, I went skiing there (not in Seoul!) and that's pretty grim not even up to 70s French resort with its moulded plastic seating and everything closing at 7pm.
My guess yesterday that every third person seems to have a dog now was right in that case.
Getting on for half of UK households have a pet of some sort, and getting on for third have a dog (maybe post covid it has now topped a third?). Higher in the countryside and lower in the cities, and otherwise pretty evenly distributed across the country, marginally higher in the south ex London as I recall, but that may just be the fewer large cities
One third of households own dogs. Sorry, but I don't believe that, and yes, I can Google surveys that show it but one third does not pass the smell test. First, I don't see very many dogs being walked on the streets or in the park; second, there is not enough shelf space for dog food in the supermarket.
Why do you all keep swallowing down what you see on Twitter or X or whatever without even doing some basic checks?
As soon as someone reposts something on Twitter, that's double sourced so totally fine to take as gospel without further validation. I'd not swallow something that hadn't been reposted at least once, for reasons of journalistic integrity.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
The *paper* economy is in rude health, and this manufacturing data is more proof of that. But in the real economy, most manufacturers will snort at the news about how buoyant things are, and most workers in whatever the sector continue to be painfully squeezed.
None of this is new - the disconnect between the official stats and reality has been growing for a while. It is odd though that stats are either a Tory triumph (Nerys this morning) or remoaner lies (the OBR) depending on what they say. Its statistics - its always wrong. Especially when they are right.
Still, it's clear that many people - not just pensioners - are very much not feeling the pinch. There is a lot more discretionary spending going on - restaurants, for example - that simply wouldn't be happening if everyone was struggling to make it from one payday to the next.
I have no doubt that many are struggling. But this doesn't feel anything like 2008.
Leon's thesis is believable. At least, the UK half of it is. I can't comment on how things are in the EU.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
Just out of curiosity what would 'wheeling it out' look like?
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
The *paper* economy is in rude health, and this manufacturing data is more proof of that. But in the real economy, most manufacturers will snort at the news about how buoyant things are, and most workers in whatever the sector continue to be painfully squeezed.
None of this is new - the disconnect between the official stats and reality has been growing for a while. It is odd though that stats are either a Tory triumph (Nerys this morning) or remoaner lies (the OBR) depending on what they say. Its statistics - its always wrong. Especially when they are right.
I think the failures to capture the real state of the economy in statistics, mainly the snapshots of recent data that then almost always are revised to show a better picture, are problematic. Why is the quick view always worse than a view a year later? Should there not be an attempt to model this, and perhaps give better estimates?
It does have consequences. Politicians and the media use incorrect data to attack the government of the day.
This is not new. If I recall correctly the IMF bail-out in the 70's was shown to be unnecessary on a fuller appreciation of the economic data.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
The *paper* economy is in rude health, and this manufacturing data is more proof of that. But in the real economy, most manufacturers will snort at the news about how buoyant things are, and most workers in whatever the sector continue to be painfully squeezed.
None of this is new - the disconnect between the official stats and reality has been growing for a while. It is odd though that stats are either a Tory triumph (Nerys this morning) or remoaner lies (the OBR) depending on what they say. Its statistics - its always wrong. Especially when they are right.
Still, it's clear that many people - not just pensioners - are very much not feeling the pinch. There is a lot more discretionary spending going on - restaurants, for example - that simply wouldn't be happening if everyone was struggling to make it from one payday to the next.
I have no doubt that many are struggling. But this doesn't feel anything like 2008.
Leon's thesis is believable. At least, the UK half of it is. I can't comment on how things are in the EU.
if only leisure and hospitality in the real world was benefitting from discretionary spending on the scale which you believe it is.
As I said, some places and people doing ok doesn't make the whole have the same experience. And restaurants and pubs are largely still struggling to recover from Covid.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
The *paper* economy is in rude health, and this manufacturing data is more proof of that. But in the real economy, most manufacturers will snort at the news about how buoyant things are, and most workers in whatever the sector continue to be painfully squeezed.
None of this is new - the disconnect between the official stats and reality has been growing for a while. It is odd though that stats are either a Tory triumph (Nerys this morning) or remoaner lies (the OBR) depending on what they say. Its statistics - its always wrong. Especially when they are right.
I think the failures to capture the real state of the economy in statistics, mainly the snapshots of recent data that then almost always are revised to show a better picture, are problematic. Why is the quick view always worse than a view a year later? Should there not be an attempt to model this, and perhaps give better estimates?
It does have consequences. Politicians and the media use incorrect data to attack the government of the day.
This is not new. If I recall correctly the IMF bail-out in the 70's was shown to be unnecessary on a fuller appreciation of the economic data.
A couple of people I know in the construction industry say that when they have been asked for data on their businesses, the format of the questions and multiple choice answers would guarantee to produce a view of what they were doing at odds with the facts.
I wonder what the Venn diagrams looks like for support for banning dangerous dogs and banning guns?
I would have expected the overlap would be close to 100%. The arguments seem almost exactly the same to me. The only reason (and it is a compelling one) for not banning either is the general principle that government should try to intervene as little as possible. But if we accept the argument that there are potentially dangerous things which we would rather the population did not own, guns and certain breeds of aggressive dogs both strike me as quite close to the top of the list.
FWIW, up until about a year ago I thought this issue had been solved with the dangerous dogs act. My circle of acquaintances was very middle class and this was honestly an issue which I never encountered. As a result of junior football I spend a lot more time with people who live in the less salubrious parts of town, where the presence of dogs like these are a major concern. (But their owners must walk them almost solely around the council estates on which they live; you never see them in the parks and open spaces which I and my middle class bubble tend to frequent.)
The catch with all these proposals is that there is barely any enforcement of such things nowadays, and no money for such. It just means that when there is an incident, the owner is in even deeper water
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I might be being slow, but what's wrong with 'Rover' as a name to give a dog?
I know it's the archetypal dog name, but it isn't all that common in practice, is quite pleasing to say, and is a dog name rather than a re-purposed human name (which is common but always sounds vaguely weird to me).
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
OT I'm slowly throwing away around 2,000 books, in the course of which I've just noticed this business book called Avoiding Adversity has a chapter on Fixed Cost Reduction Through Remote Working, from 1989. Nothing new etc.
If anyone knows where to buy boxes suitable for posting about 2 feet of books, please let me know. Weight might mean using several smaller boxes, come to think of it, but where are they sold?
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
I don't know enough of the science to answer that question.
I do know that far more by way of skills and habits and emotional states is inherited than we previously assumed, in both people and animals. People come hard-wired for language, for example.
I will always remember the first time my dog saw sheep; he must have been about four or five months old and
a) As I noted yday, a study showed that a third of households now have dogs. Extraordinary. Plenty bought during lockdown where they weren't able to socialise, and if there were no children or dogs or plenty of visitors (def not that last) in the household then will not be socialised to children or other dogs and fiercely protecting their domain from strangers.
It is no surprise that these dogs are now going rogue, of whatever breed.
b) Why on earth would the Cons bring forward the election from the latest possible date. If they are due for a malleting now why wouldn't they wait to see if events.
c) Korea is one of the most impenetrable (as a foreigner) place I have been. Seoul is fine, I went skiing there (not in Seoul!) and that's pretty grim not even up to 70s French resort with its moulded plastic seating and everything closing at 7pm.
My guess yesterday that every third person seems to have a dog now was right in that case.
Getting on for half of UK households have a pet of some sort, and getting on for third have a dog (maybe post covid it has now topped a third?). Higher in the countryside and lower in the cities, and otherwise pretty evenly distributed across the country, marginally higher in the south ex London as I recall, but that may just be the fewer large cities
One third of households own dogs. Sorry, but I don't believe that, and yes, I can Google surveys that show it but one third does not pass the smell test. First, I don't see very many dogs being walked on the streets or in the park; second, there is not enough shelf space for dog food in the supermarket.
The figures are actually credible, as youd expect ownership to be marginally higher among single person households.
The supermarket comment marks you as well behind the times. Few buy dog food from the supermarket, which is mostly the cheap rubbish sold to the cash strapped or people who have run out and need an emergency supply. Nip down your local Pets at Home, or Google online pet food delivery if you want to find out where it is bought.
I wonder what the Venn diagrams looks like for support for banning dangerous dogs and banning guns?
I would have expected the overlap would be close to 100%. The arguments seem almost exactly the same to me. The only reason (and it is a compelling one) for not banning either is the general principle that government should try to intervene as little as possible. But if we accept the argument that there are potentially dangerous things which we would rather the population did not own, guns and certain breeds of aggressive dogs both strike me as quite close to the top of the list.
FWIW, up until about a year ago I thought this issue had been solved with the dangerous dogs act. My circle of acquaintances was very middle class and this was honestly an issue which I never encountered. As a result of junior football I spend a lot more time with people who live in the less salubrious parts of town, where the presence of dogs like these are a major concern. (But their owners must walk them almost solely around the council estates on which they live; you never see them in the parks and open spaces which I and my middle class bubble tend to frequent.)
The catch with all these proposals is that there is barely any enforcement of such things nowadays, and no money for such. It just means that when there is an incident, the owner is in even deeper water
And yet we keep being told by Rishi Sunak that police numbers are at their highest ever.
For me this links back into a general need for a higher tax base - it is revealing that the rhetoric is "highest tax take since the 1960s" rather than comparisons with peer countries in 2023, and a greater emphasis on the public realm / local government after a decade of salami slicing.
I wonder what the Venn diagrams looks like for support for banning dangerous dogs and banning guns?
I would have expected the overlap would be close to 100%. The arguments seem almost exactly the same to me. The only reason (and it is a compelling one) for not banning either is the general principle that government should try to intervene as little as possible. But if we accept the argument that there are potentially dangerous things which we would rather the population did not own, guns and certain breeds of aggressive dogs both strike me as quite close to the top of the list.
FWIW, up until about a year ago I thought this issue had been solved with the dangerous dogs act. My circle of acquaintances was very middle class and this was honestly an issue which I never encountered. As a result of junior football I spend a lot more time with people who live in the less salubrious parts of town, where the presence of dogs like these are a major concern. (But their owners must walk them almost solely around the council estates on which they live; you never see them in the parks and open spaces which I and my middle class bubble tend to frequent.)
The catch with all these proposals is that there is barely any enforcement of such things nowadays, and no money for such. It just means that when there is an incident, the owner is in even deeper water
And yet we keep being told by Rishi Sunak that police numbers are at their highest ever.
For me this links back into a general need for a higher tax base - it is revealing that the rhetoric is "highest tax take since the 1960s" rather than comparisons with peer countries in 2023, and a greater emphasis on the public realm / local government after a decade of salami slicing.
Local Authority dog wardens also do a lot of enforcement, effectively - strays and so on. Presumably it is a statutory duty, but in practice I have no idea how well it works with the current funding issues.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
I'm not interested in wading into the specifics of this tweet, but the fact a Twitter user has 70k followers is a pretty poor guarantor of the factual accuracy of its tweets. I'd trust it more than an egg with three followers, but nevertheless.
I wonder what the Venn diagrams looks like for support for banning dangerous dogs and banning guns?
I would have expected the overlap would be close to 100%. The arguments seem almost exactly the same to me. The only reason (and it is a compelling one) for not banning either is the general principle that government should try to intervene as little as possible. But if we accept the argument that there are potentially dangerous things which we would rather the population did not own, guns and certain breeds of aggressive dogs both strike me as quite close to the top of the list.
FWIW, up until about a year ago I thought this issue had been solved with the dangerous dogs act. My circle of acquaintances was very middle class and this was honestly an issue which I never encountered. As a result of junior football I spend a lot more time with people who live in the less salubrious parts of town, where the presence of dogs like these are a major concern. (But their owners must walk them almost solely around the council estates on which they live; you never see them in the parks and open spaces which I and my middle class bubble tend to frequent.)
The catch with all these proposals is that there is barely any enforcement of such things nowadays, and no money for such. It just means that when there is an incident, the owner is in even deeper water
And yet we keep being told by Rishi Sunak that police numbers are at their highest ever.
For me this links back into a general need for a higher tax base - it is revealing that the rhetoric is "highest tax take since the 1960s" rather than comparisons with peer countries in 2023, and a greater emphasis on the public realm / local government after a decade of salami slicing.
In the case of the police, a number of officers are referred to by their fellows as Eternal Flames.
Because they never go out.
It is a constant in management theory and practise that giving an unreformed organisation more resources can often *decrease* output.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
Start from the answer and work backwards; why change the habit of a lifetime?
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
I'm not interested in wading into the specifics of this tweet, but the fact a Twitter user has 70k followers is a pretty poor guarantor of the factual accuracy of its tweets. I'd trust it more than an egg with three followers, but nevertheless.
Depends on the tweeter. Some random influencer, with a grievance? - sure
But this is a trade body representing UK manufacturing, as far as I can see, so they’d look extremely dumb and undermine their USP if they “wheeled out” some mad made-up stats
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
Start from the answer and work backwards; why change the habit of a lifetime?
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
I already did "go check", and I found nothing. That's the point.
You need someone with a higher IQ to check for you? Ok
Took me 3 seconds
“UK manufacturing climbs to 8th in world rankings
Sector can close the gap to Italy with 15% GDP target”
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
The *paper* economy is in rude health, and this manufacturing data is more proof of that. But in the real economy, most manufacturers will snort at the news about how buoyant things are, and most workers in whatever the sector continue to be painfully squeezed.
None of this is new - the disconnect between the official stats and reality has been growing for a while. It is odd though that stats are either a Tory triumph (Nerys this morning) or remoaner lies (the OBR) depending on what they say. Its statistics - its always wrong. Especially when they are right.
I work in manufacturing, and deal with quite a few UK manufacturers.
I can only agree with what Rochdale is saying here from personal experience on a micro level. Our order book is down considerably this year from last year and, as a consequence so are our orders on our suppliers with the consequent knock on effect.
Many companies I deal with in the UK are feeling the same really.
We recently held a supplier day and I had to turn up and give a talk on Engineering and what we are doing. Many of the suppliers I spoke to are struggling as well and many of us are not seeing the reductions in global commodity pricing feeding through.
No one I speak to has any expectation of orders rebounding anytime soon either.
Strongly suggests officials are telling the politicos that it is simply becoming unaffordable
Unless it's a cunning plan to tempt them into breaking cover, of course
Cunning plan most likely. Rishi will have seen the polls, so must know there is absolutely no benefit in reducing his offer to voters. There is value in tricking Labour into attacking the grey vote.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
I already did "go check", and I found nothing. That's the point.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I knew someone who had 2 dogs named Castor and Pollux.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
The *paper* economy is in rude health, and this manufacturing data is more proof of that. But in the real economy, most manufacturers will snort at the news about how buoyant things are, and most workers in whatever the sector continue to be painfully squeezed.
None of this is new - the disconnect between the official stats and reality has been growing for a while. It is odd though that stats are either a Tory triumph (Nerys this morning) or remoaner lies (the OBR) depending on what they say. Its statistics - its always wrong. Especially when they are right.
Still, it's clear that many people - not just pensioners - are very much not feeling the pinch. There is a lot more discretionary spending going on - restaurants, for example - that simply wouldn't be happening if everyone was struggling to make it from one payday to the next.
I have no doubt that many are struggling. But this doesn't feel anything like 2008.
Leon's thesis is believable. At least, the UK half of it is. I can't comment on how things are in the EU.
if only leisure and hospitality in the real world was benefitting from discretionary spending on the scale which you believe it is.
As I said, some places and people doing ok doesn't make the whole have the same experience. And restaurants and pubs are largely still struggling to recover from Covid.
Many people's habits have changed as a result of the pandemic, either seeing the financial or health benefits of living without so many meals out or coffee and cake stops, or simply new acquired habits.
I see that myself; a year walking the dog without cafes to drop by, after the park, and nowadays I do so much more rarely, despite them all being open again.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
I'm not interested in wading into the specifics of this tweet, but the fact a Twitter user has 70k followers is a pretty poor guarantor of the factual accuracy of its tweets. I'd trust it more than an egg with three followers, but nevertheless.
Depends on the tweeter. Some random influencer, with a grievance? - sure
But this is a trade body representing UK manufacturing, as far as I can see, so they’d look extremely dumb and undermine their USP if they “wheeled out” some mad made-up stats
Mad, no. Selective, possibly.
"More or Less" on Radio 4 is chock full of reasonably respectable organisations trotting out somewhat misleading stats of dubious provenance.
It's not unreasonable to have a bit of a dig behind these sorts of stats, whether or not they confirm your own intuitions.
I wonder what the Venn diagrams looks like for support for banning dangerous dogs and banning guns?
I would have expected the overlap would be close to 100%. The arguments seem almost exactly the same to me. The only reason (and it is a compelling one) for not banning either is the general principle that government should try to intervene as little as possible. But if we accept the argument that there are potentially dangerous things which we would rather the population did not own, guns and certain breeds of aggressive dogs both strike me as quite close to the top of the list.
FWIW, up until about a year ago I thought this issue had been solved with the dangerous dogs act. My circle of acquaintances was very middle class and this was honestly an issue which I never encountered. As a result of junior football I spend a lot more time with people who live in the less salubrious parts of town, where the presence of dogs like these are a major concern. (But their owners must walk them almost solely around the council estates on which they live; you never see them in the parks and open spaces which I and my middle class bubble tend to frequent.)
The catch with all these proposals is that there is barely any enforcement of such things nowadays, and no money for such. It just means that when there is an incident, the owner is in even deeper water
And yet we keep being told by Rishi Sunak that police numbers are at their highest ever.
For me this links back into a general need for a higher tax base - it is revealing that the rhetoric is "highest tax take since the 1960s" rather than comparisons with peer countries in 2023, and a greater emphasis on the public realm / local government after a decade of salami slicing.
In the case of the police, a number of officers are referred to by their fellows as Eternal Flames.
Because they never go out.
It is a constant in management theory and practise that giving an unreformed organisation more resources can often *decrease* output.
It is a common complaint against fictional detectives that they invariably have too high a rank for their role on television or in books. Superintendents do not search for clues, they review policy papers. Even Detective Inspectors direct investigations from indoors.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
Predefinition: State your measurement criteria (your metrics) before you write it, define them in the beginning (and justify your choice) and ensure you apply the same metric to both the UK and EU. No bollocks such as "UK built 40% of self-sealing stembolts since 2019 but Spain only built 30% of latinum-pressed lathes!!! MORE OPIUM!!"
No subsetting: If you are comparing the UK and EU, ensure your stats are actually for the UK and EU, not (say) England-and-Wales and Germany
Timepoints. Try to measure your metrcis from the same timepoints, eg don't compare a report from 2022 to another from 2023. Yiu can workaround this by saying "the latest report by 2023" but people will notice
My usual rant. Try to do absolute values, relative values and thresholds. there's no point saying "UK cured 90% of people with Goblin Disease but EU only 80%!!!" if only 12 people caught it and they only get a brief sniffle.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I knew someone who had 2 dogs named Castor and Pollux.
I wonder if anyone has a dog called Fido these days ?
Strongly suggests officials are telling the politicos that it is simply becoming unaffordable
Unless it's a cunning plan to tempt them into breaking cover, of course
As a matter of base logic, the triple lock is an escalator measure for state pensions that will individually outrun each of average wages, inflation and 2.5% as different measures come to the top.
So, at some point, when state pension is considered generous enough, the top of the escalator has to reached and we will need to step off, whether that is 1 or 30 years down the line.
Really, the state pension escalator / triple lock is only one of the issues with pension wealth and possibly not the main one, house price wealth, lack of a market structure that encourages downsizing, and the cost of the defined benefit golden goose that those following will not get to enjoy are all bigger issues and given all those promised / owned things are, quite correctly, not things that just be grabbed away for no reason, it has to be mainly taxation that delivers something equitable across generations.
It's worth noting dogs have a fantastic degree of variation given all the breeds are a single species. Traits assigned to breeds have long been considered a genuine thing, though there's also a degree of self-determination from pet owners. If some oafish thug wants a status/attack dog, he's going to go for a big dog that has said reputation, reinforcing the perception that that's how such dogs behave when it's more down to the owner than the dog.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
We met a dog of the same breed called Krumpli, which sounds interesting until you realise it is Hungarian for potato.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I might be being slow, but what's wrong with 'Rover' as a name to give a dog?
I know it's the archetypal dog name, but it isn't all that common in practice, is quite pleasing to say, and is a dog name rather than a re-purposed human name (which is common but always sounds vaguely weird to me).
Luca, Luna, Bella, Bailey, Milo are the sort of names people go for nowadays
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
Since when was twitter follower numbers a measure of legitimacy?
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I knew someone who had 2 dogs named Castor and Pollux.
I wonder if anyone has a dog called Fido these days ?
At one time my father owned a Welsh terrier which he called Dai. Nasty little animal, the dog was. Took a strong dislike to my fiancee, a dislike with was mutual. However, did give an excuse for us not visiting.
I wonder what the Venn diagrams looks like for support for banning dangerous dogs and banning guns?
I would have expected the overlap would be close to 100%. The arguments seem almost exactly the same to me. The only reason (and it is a compelling one) for not banning either is the general principle that government should try to intervene as little as possible. But if we accept the argument that there are potentially dangerous things which we would rather the population did not own, guns and certain breeds of aggressive dogs both strike me as quite close to the top of the list.
FWIW, up until about a year ago I thought this issue had been solved with the dangerous dogs act. My circle of acquaintances was very middle class and this was honestly an issue which I never encountered. As a result of junior football I spend a lot more time with people who live in the less salubrious parts of town, where the presence of dogs like these are a major concern. (But their owners must walk them almost solely around the council estates on which they live; you never see them in the parks and open spaces which I and my middle class bubble tend to frequent.)
The catch with all these proposals is that there is barely any enforcement of such things nowadays, and no money for such. It just means that when there is an incident, the owner is in even deeper water
And yet we keep being told by Rishi Sunak that police numbers are at their highest ever.
For me this links back into a general need for a higher tax base - it is revealing that the rhetoric is "highest tax take since the 1960s" rather than comparisons with peer countries in 2023, and a greater emphasis on the public realm / local government after a decade of salami slicing.
Local Authority dog wardens also do a lot of enforcement, effectively - strays and so on. Presumably it is a statutory duty, but in practice I have no idea how well it works with the current funding issues.
Many councils only have a single dog warden now, and some have combined the job with other duties.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
A few times since he's got in with sheep or goats when I've not spotted that they're about quick enough, and he just rounds them up and runs them around the field. The more difficult stuff such as getting them into an enclosure likely does have to be taught.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
I don't know enough of the science to answer that question.
I do know that far more by way of skills and habits and emotional states is inherited than we previously assumed, in both people and animals. People come hard-wired for language, for example.
I will always remember the first time my dog saw sheep; he must have been about four or five months old and
a) As I noted yday, a study showed that a third of households now have dogs. Extraordinary. Plenty bought during lockdown where they weren't able to socialise, and if there were no children or dogs or plenty of visitors (def not that last) in the household then will not be socialised to children or other dogs and fiercely protecting their domain from strangers.
It is no surprise that these dogs are now going rogue, of whatever breed.
b) Why on earth would the Cons bring forward the election from the latest possible date. If they are due for a malleting now why wouldn't they wait to see if events.
c) Korea is one of the most impenetrable (as a foreigner) place I have been. Seoul is fine, I went skiing there (not in Seoul!) and that's pretty grim not even up to 70s French resort with its moulded plastic seating and everything closing at 7pm.
My guess yesterday that every third person seems to have a dog now was right in that case.
Getting on for half of UK households have a pet of some sort, and getting on for third have a dog (maybe post covid it has now topped a third?). Higher in the countryside and lower in the cities, and otherwise pretty evenly distributed across the country, marginally higher in the south ex London as I recall, but that may just be the fewer large cities
One third of households own dogs. Sorry, but I don't believe that, and yes, I can Google surveys that show it but one third does not pass the smell test. First, I don't see very many dogs being walked on the streets or in the park; second, there is not enough shelf space for dog food in the supermarket.
I think TBH the difference between 27% of adults and 33% of households is not worth a debate.
Call it "about 30%".
Ah but I was thinking if dog-owners tend to be two-person households (to avoid locking the mutt up all day while daddy is at work) then 27 of adults would be more like 15 per cent of households but of course it is possible the PDSA's figures already account for that anomaly by only recording one owner per dog in which case, yes, it is about 30 per cent.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
I already did "go check", and I found nothing. That's the point.
WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID
One person says "where is this report that's being referred to, I'd like to know more about the methodology". Another person says "they've got 70k followers, seems legit".
I guess I'm too stupid to work out which of those two stances is the stupider.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
Start from the answer and work backwards; why change the habit of a lifetime?
It’s how I saw Covid coming long before you
The apposite quote from you, back when it was coming, was that it would be "contagious but benign".
Then once it has arrived, it was apparently going to kill millions, in the UK alone, with so many dead bodies they'd soon be lying uncollected on street corners.
Followed by your figurework with that loopy woman predicting billions of cases worldwide in a matter of months.
So many shots, and not one anywhere near the target
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I knew someone who had 2 dogs named Castor and Pollux.
Thy should have been called phobos and deimos. That way they could have been let loose by crying havoc
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
I already did "go check", and I found nothing. That's the point.
WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID
One person says "where is this report that's being referred to, I'd like to know more about the methodology". Another person says "they've got 70k followers, seems legit".
I guess I'm too stupid to work out which of those two stances is the stupider.
Right, I found that page and the sister page "publications", but the 2023 publication isn't there AFAICS. Found the 2022 one and previous years, but no 2023. That's when I came back on here to say "well, where is it?"
I thought you might be able to quench your thirst for methodology by reading their previous reports
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I might be being slow, but what's wrong with 'Rover' as a name to give a dog?
I know it's the archetypal dog name, but it isn't all that common in practice, is quite pleasing to say, and is a dog name rather than a re-purposed human name (which is common but always sounds vaguely weird to me).
Well there's nothing wrong with it per se - but as you say it is the archetypal dog name which isn't all that common in practice - so uncommon in fact (because it is the archetypal dog name) that I have never come across one before.
Most dogs I know nowadays have names which could conceivably be given to humans - Max, Minnie, Charlie, Georgie, Olive.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Why has this post got 3 likes? Everyone must know that some dogs are deliberately bred for aggression.
That’s his point. Many breeds of dog should not be pets.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
Predefinition: State your measurement criteria (your metrics) before you write it, define them in the beginning (and justify your choice) and ensure you apply the same metric to both the UK and EU. No bollocks such as "UK built 40% of self-sealing stembolts since 2019 but Spain only built 30% of latinum-pressed lathes!!! MORE OPIUM!!"
No subsetting: If you are comparing the UK and EU, ensure your stats are actually for the UK and EU, not (say) England-and-Wales and Germany
Timepoints. Try to measure your metrcis from the same timepoints, eg don't compare a report from 2022 to another from 2023. Yiu can workaround this by saying "the latest report by 2023" but people will notice
My usual rant. Try to do absolute values, relative values and thresholds. there's no point saying "UK cured 90% of people with Goblin Disease but EU only 80%!!!" if only 12 people caught it and they only get a brief sniffle.
Leon's IQ is way too high to understand any of that.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I might be being slow, but what's wrong with 'Rover' as a name to give a dog?
I know it's the archetypal dog name, but it isn't all that common in practice, is quite pleasing to say, and is a dog name rather than a re-purposed human name (which is common but always sounds vaguely weird to me).
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
I already did "go check", and I found nothing. That's the point.
WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID
One person says "where is this report that's being referred to, I'd like to know more about the methodology". Another person says "they've got 70k followers, seems legit".
I guess I'm too stupid to work out which of those two stances is the stupider.
Right, I found that page and the sister page "publications", but the 2023 publication isn't there AFAICS. Found the 2022 one and previous years, but no 2023. That's when I came back on here to say "well, where is it?"
I thought you might be able to quench your thirst for methodology by reading their previous reports
Right, but I'd still want to check they haven't changed the methodology for this time around. You can already see they changed the reporting period prior to 2022, so I'm going to wait for the 2023 to appear.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
What is this nonsense? Have you ever even owned a dog??
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
A few times since he's got in with sheep or goats when I've not spotted that they're about quick enough, and he just rounds them up and runs them around the field. The more difficult stuff such as getting them into an enclosure likely does have to be taught.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
I don't know enough of the science to answer that question.
I do know that far more by way of skills and habits and emotional states is inherited than we previously assumed, in both people and animals. People come hard-wired for language, for example.
I will always remember the first time my dog saw sheep; he must have been about four or five months old and
a) As I noted yday, a study showed that a third of households now have dogs. Extraordinary. Plenty bought during lockdown where they weren't able to socialise, and if there were no children or dogs or plenty of visitors (def not that last) in the household then will not be socialised to children or other dogs and fiercely protecting their domain from strangers.
It is no surprise that these dogs are now going rogue, of whatever breed.
b) Why on earth would the Cons bring forward the election from the latest possible date. If they are due for a malleting now why wouldn't they wait to see if events.
c) Korea is one of the most impenetrable (as a foreigner) place I have been. Seoul is fine, I went skiing there (not in Seoul!) and that's pretty grim not even up to 70s French resort with its moulded plastic seating and everything closing at 7pm.
My guess yesterday that every third person seems to have a dog now was right in that case.
Getting on for half of UK households have a pet of some sort, and getting on for third have a dog (maybe post covid it has now topped a third?). Higher in the countryside and lower in the cities, and otherwise pretty evenly distributed across the country, marginally higher in the south ex London as I recall, but that may just be the fewer large cities
One third of households own dogs. Sorry, but I don't believe that, and yes, I can Google surveys that show it but one third does not pass the smell test. First, I don't see very many dogs being walked on the streets or in the park; second, there is not enough shelf space for dog food in the supermarket.
I think TBH the difference between 27% of adults and 33% of households is not worth a debate.
Call it "about 30%".
Ah but I was thinking if dog-owners tend to be two-person households (to avoid locking the mutt up all day while daddy is at work) then 27 of adults would be more like 15 per cent of households but of course it is possible the PDSA's figures already account for that anomaly by only recording one owner per dog in which case, yes, it is about 30 per cent.
Logic fail.
If everyone in a dog owning household is put down as a dog owner, and the proportion of single person households owning a dog is higher than the proportion of two person households owning a dog, then the proportion of households owning a dog will be higher than the proportion of people owning a dog because of the greater proportion of two-person households without a dog
'Suella Braverman is pushing for a ban on American bully XL dogs, arguing they are a “clear and lethal danger”, particularly to children.
The home secretary announced she has commissioned urgent advice on outlawing the dogs after she highlighted an “appalling” attack on an 11-year-old girl in Birmingham.
However, adding dogs to the banned list is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey. The PA news agency understands there are concerns within Defra over the feasibility of adding the American bully.'
The idea Coffey would overrule Braverman on this is laughable.
Braverman will have got Sunak's approval for this popular ban, civil servants will do what the elected government tells them to do and most MPs would also almost certainly vote it into law
What makes you think Braverman has Sunak’s approval?
She’s quite clearly politicking to be her successor by parking her tanks on someone else’s lawn. If Sunak had any authority he’d slap her down. But he doesn’t have that power.
Ms Braverman got lots of publicity over cats - cat lessons, not her dept at all.
Now it's dogs.
What next, gerbils or newts?
If she's talking about banning the breed, then it's not her dept at all. She can't override a fellow minister, as HYUFD seems to think - but he thought yesterday that just because Ms Braverman said she wanted X that meant it has already happened as ordered by the PM.
There may be scope within the HO for non-breed based solutions for what is a real problem - insurance, and so on - and those to my mind have more merit. But those would impact some, or all, other dogs. And, of course, there are existing laws on reckless behaviour.
Loving your insouciance about kids being mauled.
I'm concerned what she is doing won't stop it in future. Or even now.
A concern and nuance that you didn't apply to the issue of Ulez I seem to remember, where your response was more 'Won't somebody think of the children???'.
It's worth noting dogs have a fantastic degree of variation given all the breeds are a single species. Traits assigned to breeds have long been considered a genuine thing, though there's also a degree of self-determination from pet owners. If some oafish thug wants a status/attack dog, he's going to go for a big dog that has said reputation, reinforcing the perception that that's how such dogs behave when it's more down to the owner than the dog.
While completely irrelevant we got a staffie/collie mix as a puppy many years ago and he was raised with two adult cats. He certainly picked up stuff from being socialised with cats as we had to regularly rescue him from trees. Because the trunk had a lean he could use speed to get to the lower branches but then you would hear him yelping and find him with his front legs hooked over a branch with his back legs peddling madly in mid air
It's worth noting dogs have a fantastic degree of variation given all the breeds are a single species. Traits assigned to breeds have long been considered a genuine thing, though there's also a degree of self-determination from pet owners. If some oafish thug wants a status/attack dog, he's going to go for a big dog that has said reputation, reinforcing the perception that that's how such dogs behave when it's more down to the owner than the dog.
There is at least one case of someone being killed by dachshunds.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
Start from the answer and work backwards; why change the habit of a lifetime?
It’s how I saw Covid coming long before you
The apposite quote from you, back when it was coming, was that it would be "contagious but benign".
Then once it has arrived, it was apparently going to kill millions, in the UK alone, with so many dead bodies they'd soon be lying uncollected on street corners.
Followed by your figurework with that loopy woman predicting billions of cases worldwide in a matter of months.
So many shots, and not one anywhere near the target
Geometric mean of "nobody will die" and "half of everyone will die" is probably not far from the truth. Leon wins again. He truly is a colossus.
Isn’t the geometric mean of no one dying and half of everyone dying just no one dying?
Tell us something that wasn't instantly obvious to everyone on here...
And as we also pointed out there has never been many examples of in-person voter fraud - the issue that needed to be fixed yet wasn't touched was postal fraud...
It's worth noting dogs have a fantastic degree of variation given all the breeds are a single species. Traits assigned to breeds have long been considered a genuine thing, though there's also a degree of self-determination from pet owners. If some oafish thug wants a status/attack dog, he's going to go for a big dog that has said reputation, reinforcing the perception that that's how such dogs behave when it's more down to the owner than the dog.
There is at least one case of someone being killed by dachshunds.
Take one walking on a mountain ledge and wait for the rabbit...
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I might be being slow, but what's wrong with 'Rover' as a name to give a dog?
I know it's the archetypal dog name, but it isn't all that common in practice, is quite pleasing to say, and is a dog name rather than a re-purposed human name (which is common but always sounds vaguely weird to me).
Well there's nothing wrong with it per se - but as you say it is the archetypal dog name which isn't all that common in practice - so uncommon in fact (because it is the archetypal dog name) that I have never come across one before.
Most dogs I know nowadays have names which could conceivably be given to humans - Max, Minnie, Charlie, Georgie, Olive.
I was told a dog’s name should be two syllables, both hard.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
That must be nonsense because the economy is dead.
I’m developing a thesis that the UK economy is actually doing better than we all realise - and positive changes are happening unseen - and the EU is doing worse, with attendant political problems brewing
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
Start from the answer and work backwards; why change the habit of a lifetime?
It’s how I saw Covid coming long before you
The apposite quote from you, back when it was coming, was that it would be "contagious but benign".
Then once it has arrived, it was apparently going to kill millions, in the UK alone, with so many dead bodies they'd soon be lying uncollected on street corners.
Followed by your figurework with that loopy woman predicting billions of cases worldwide in a matter of months.
So many shots, and not one anywhere near the target
Geometric mean of "nobody will die" and "half of everyone will die" is probably not far from the truth. Leon wins again. He truly is a colossus.
Isn’t the geometric mean of no one dying and half of everyone dying just no one dying?
It is! Very well spotted. Change my 0 to 1 person and that's what I was trying and failing to say.
Change geometric to arithmetic, and you'd be closer
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I might be being slow, but what's wrong with 'Rover' as a name to give a dog?
I know it's the archetypal dog name, but it isn't all that common in practice, is quite pleasing to say, and is a dog name rather than a re-purposed human name (which is common but always sounds vaguely weird to me).
Indeed.
I have met dogs called David, Lionel — and John.
This hounds with people names thing has to stop.
Whatever happened to the Wellards and Bouncers that abounded in days of yore? There was a time in this once-great nation when men were men, women were women, and dogs were dogs.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
I can't find any report or press release from MakeUK from this week. The most recent data I can find for other countries on their site is from 4 years ago Other sites show different figures, so MakeUK's so methodology needs to be considered. E.g. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ranking/manufacturing-output
I mean, I don't know. I don't know MakeUK so I was curious to see exactly what they said, maybe dig into the methodology. Nothing so far. Hoping to hand the question over to someone whose IQ is at least thirty points higher.
Seeing as you ask so nicely, the tweet was by a pro manufacturing group with 70k followers. Looks legit. Go check
I already did "go check", and I found nothing. That's the point.
WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID
One person says "where is this report that's being referred to, I'd like to know more about the methodology". Another person says "they've got 70k followers, seems legit".
I guess I'm too stupid to work out which of those two stances is the stupider.
Right, I found that page and the sister page "publications", but the 2023 publication isn't there AFAICS. Found the 2022 one and previous years, but no 2023. That's when I came back on here to say "well, where is it?"
I thought you might be able to quench your thirst for methodology by reading their previous reports
Right, but I'd still want to check they haven't changed the methodology for this time around. You can already see they changed the reporting period prior to 2022, so I'm going to wait for the 2023 to appear.
Very professional 👍🏻
No need for sarcasm, I'm just wanting to do the donkey work that nobody else seems to want to do. It's a good idea to check these things and not just rely on some random Twitter account that the forum drunkard groks is reliable enough to trust.
Yes, I thought looking at the methodology of their previous reports might help to see if they were trustworthy, or just Twitter randoms.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
The Roman military dogs reminds me of a funny story I heard where a guy was watching Gladiator with his girlfriend and at the beginning the legionaries are lined up ready to face the German’s and Russell Crowe is walking along with his Alsatian on a chain. He instructs someone “on my command unleash Hell” and the guys girlfriend said “that’s a strange name for a dog.”
On the subject of comical dog names, a friend had one called Timber. She was Canadian, and often walked it in the woods.
I genuinely heard a middle aged couple refer to their small curly haired black dog as 'Rover' on Friday. This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I might be being slow, but what's wrong with 'Rover' as a name to give a dog?
I know it's the archetypal dog name, but it isn't all that common in practice, is quite pleasing to say, and is a dog name rather than a re-purposed human name (which is common but always sounds vaguely weird to me).
Well there's nothing wrong with it per se - but as you say it is the archetypal dog name which isn't all that common in practice - so uncommon in fact (because it is the archetypal dog name) that I have never come across one before.
Most dogs I know nowadays have names which could conceivably be given to humans - Max, Minnie, Charlie, Georgie, Olive.
I was told a dog’s name should be two syllables, both hard.
Easier to call them that way
And single syllable commands should be repeated (doubled) for greater recognition
Comments
Is a line which will take some beating on PB today.
Dimensions are 50 x 40 x 25 cm.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/pensions-triple-lock-threat-as-rishi-sunak-hints-he-may-rip-up-tory-election-promise/ar-AA1gwlpy?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=dbafcfc0305742c5b4f21a7376c8fb56&ei=12
The PDSA does report dog ownership is more common in the countryside than in towns, so that might partly explain it. The PDSA also has 27 per cent of adults owning dogs, which is presumably less than a third of households unless there are some funny definitions used, as most doggy households would likely have two adults.
https://www.pdsa.org.uk/what-we-do/pdsa-animal-wellbeing-report/paw-report-2022/pet-populations-across-the-uk
He became so used to us he would saunter casually past the camp at twilight. Looking suave
and debonair, a flaneur of the bush
I nicknamed him “Evelyn”
I was honestly less scared of him than I would be of an unleashed bully dog in Primrose Hill. He was no threat to any human (unless you went up to him and slapped him)
I’m not quite ready to wheel it out yet. It could be horribly wrong. But if my embryonic hunch is right the perceived narrative on Brexit might be en route to a 180 turn
The only reason (and it is a compelling one) for not banning either is the general principle that government should try to intervene as little as possible. But if we accept the argument that there are potentially dangerous things which we would rather the population did not own, guns and certain breeds of aggressive dogs both strike me as quite close to the top of the list.
FWIW, up until about a year ago I thought this issue had been solved with the dangerous dogs act. My circle of acquaintances was very middle class and this was honestly an issue which I never encountered. As a result of junior football I spend a lot more time with people who live in the less salubrious parts of town, where the presence of dogs like these are a major concern. (But their owners must walk them almost solely around the council estates on which they live; you never see them in the parks and open spaces which I and my middle class bubble tend to frequent.)
Under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, if a dog worries sheep on agricultural land, the person in charge of the dog is guilty of an offence. The Act considers sheep worrying to include attacking sheep, chasing them in a way that may cause injury, suffering, abortion or loss of produce or being at large (not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep.
https://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/for-the-public/culture/sheep-worrying/sheep-worrying/2457/staying-legal-in-england-and-wales/
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/pet-ownership-statistics-uk/
Thinking about the ten properties closest to mine dog ownership runs at 70%. But as you say we are in the countryside
None of this is new - the disconnect between the official stats and reality has been growing for a while. It is odd though that stats are either a Tory triumph (Nerys this morning) or remoaner lies (the OBR) depending on what they say. Its statistics - its always wrong. Especially when they are right.
The problem for the Tories is that in the current economy more places and people and sectors are being hammered than the people doing well. That the winners are doing so well as to bend the statistics and have Tories sneering about how great things are is a big part of the problem.
I think TBH the difference between 27% of adults and 33% of households is not worth a debate.
Call it "about 30%".
That's how it works, innit?
I have no doubt that many are struggling. But this doesn't feel anything like 2008.
Leon's thesis is believable. At least, the UK half of it is. I can't comment on how things are in the EU.
Strongly suggests officials are telling the politicos that it is simply becoming unaffordable
Unless it's a cunning plan to tempt them into breaking cover, of course
It does have consequences. Politicians and the media use incorrect data to attack the government of the day.
This is not new. If I recall correctly the IMF bail-out in the 70's was shown to be unnecessary on a fuller appreciation of the economic data.
As I said, some places and people doing ok doesn't make the whole have the same experience. And restaurants and pubs are largely still struggling to recover from Covid.
This was Chorlton Green so may have been ironic, or something.
I know it's the archetypal dog name, but it isn't all that common in practice, is quite pleasing to say, and is a dog name rather than a re-purposed human name (which is common but always sounds vaguely weird to me).
https://www.whsmith.co.uk/office/postal-boxes-tubes-and-bags/mailing-boxes/off00016/?p=1
They can also be obtained from places like Rymans
The supermarket comment marks you as well behind the times. Few buy dog food from the supermarket, which is mostly the cheap rubbish sold to the cash strapped or people who have run out and need an emergency supply. Nip down your local Pets at Home, or Google online pet food delivery if you want to find out where it is bought.
For me this links back into a general need for a higher tax base - it is revealing that the rhetoric is "highest tax take since the 1960s" rather than comparisons with peer countries in 2023, and a greater emphasis on the public realm / local government after a decade of salami slicing.
Waiting for further data before the official “wheel out”
Because they never go out.
It is a constant in management theory and practise that giving an unreformed organisation more resources can often *decrease* output.
But this is a trade body representing UK manufacturing, as far as I can see, so they’d look extremely dumb and undermine their USP if they “wheeled out” some mad made-up stats
Took me 3 seconds
“UK manufacturing climbs to 8th in world rankings
Sector can close the gap to Italy with 15% GDP target”
https://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-former/press-release/2023/09/11/uk-manufacturing-climbs-to-8th-in-world-rankings/
I can only agree with what Rochdale is saying here from personal experience on a micro level. Our order book is down considerably this year from last year and, as a consequence so are our orders on our suppliers with the consequent knock on effect.
Many companies I deal with in the UK are feeling the same really.
We recently held a supplier day and I had to turn up and give a talk on Engineering and what we are doing. Many of the suppliers I spoke to are struggling as well and many of us are not seeing the reductions in global commodity pricing feeding through.
No one I speak to has any expectation of orders rebounding anytime soon either.
I see that myself; a year walking the dog without cafes to drop by, after the park, and nowadays I do so much more rarely, despite them all being open again.
"More or Less" on Radio 4 is chock full of reasonably respectable organisations trotting out somewhat misleading stats of dubious provenance.
It's not unreasonable to have a bit of a dig behind these sorts of stats, whether or not they confirm your own intuitions.
So, at some point, when state pension is considered generous enough, the top of the escalator has to reached and we will need to step off, whether that is 1 or 30 years down the line.
Really, the state pension escalator / triple lock is only one of the issues with pension wealth and possibly not the main one, house price wealth, lack of a market structure that encourages downsizing, and the cost of the
defined benefit golden goose that those following will not get to enjoy are all bigger issues and given all those promised / owned things are, quite correctly, not things that just be grabbed away for no reason, it has to be mainly taxation that delivers something equitable across generations.
However, did give an excuse for us not visiting.
So, they have uploaded the 2023 data this morning, but screwed up in some way.
This is a lovely piece.
https://www.makeuk.org/insights/reports
Then once it has arrived, it was apparently going to kill millions, in the UK alone, with so many dead bodies they'd soon be lying uncollected on street corners.
Followed by your figurework with that loopy woman predicting billions of cases worldwide in a matter of months.
So many shots, and not one anywhere near the target
Most dogs I know nowadays have names which could conceivably be given to humans - Max, Minnie, Charlie, Georgie, Olive.
I have met dogs called David, Lionel — and John.
Exclusive: All-party report on rules governing 2023 local elections calls voter ID system a ‘poisoned cure’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/11/voter-id-in-england-led-to-racial-and-disability-discrimination-report-finds
If everyone in a dog owning household is put down as a dog owner, and the proportion of single person households owning a dog is higher than the proportion of two person households owning a dog, then the proportion of households owning a dog will be higher than the proportion of people owning a dog because of the greater proportion of two-person households without a dog
I’ve on a plane for at least 2 hours
And as we also pointed out there has never been many examples of in-person voter fraud - the issue that needed to be fixed yet wasn't touched was postal fraud...
Easier to call them that way
Whatever happened to the Wellards and Bouncers that abounded in days of yore? There was a time in this once-great nation when men were men, women were women, and dogs were dogs.
Apparently not, fair enough
Look, Brexit is done, it's time we all moved on and talked about other stuff.
Also the Brexiteers, breaking into girlish squeals at some unverified bit of news:
Rejoice, rejoice, Brexit is a success!!!