The fact that that embarrassment beat Rishi in a vote of the party membership is a stain on the party and indeed Rishi that he must be desperate to gloss over. This is the same party membership who preferred IDS to Ken Clarke which I thought at the time was possibly the ultimate in delusion but, given that they were in office at the time and picking our PM, this tops even that.
Not fit for purpose.
The purpose of a political party is to get people elected who represent its interests and views, not as obedient voting fodder handing a series of smarmy dickheads the keys to No. 10. The grassroots Tory Party has had a broadly settled eurosceptic and low tax preference for decades. Why exactly do you feel that they should be obliged to elect Kenneth Clarke or Rishi Sunak? Would Change UK, the Lib Dems or Labour accept a leaver as their leader?
That may be the purpose of a political party but the purpose of government is to govern for the whole country. Any political party seeking power needs to accept that.
The Welsh 20 mph petition is now really picking up steam. 109,135.
I assume because a lot of Welsh drivers have only just made it home.
Drivers in Wales have experienced the reality of default 20mph and do not like it
It doesn't have to be this way as there is a case for 20mph round schools, hospitals and congested areas, but blanket no
In England there is no way to enforce 20mph limits. There aren't any police to stand on every 20mph road with a laser gun, there isn't the money for speed cameras, there isn't even money to build restrictions to force 20mph such as humps or chicanes.
In short it is window-dressing trying to encourage drivers to slow down. An effective advisory limit. So I can't see how Wales will be any different and I expect that most drivers will drive closer to 30mph than 20mph.
I hope common sense will prevail and as @Penddu2 said earlier ( see 7.15am) the petition will require a Senedd discussion with the likely confirmation that powers will be vested in LAs
Mind you on the day fire stations are threatened with closures in Wales, the fire service are being enrolled to assist in enforcement
Calm down, old fella. The fire service can't get involved in "enforcement". They're not coppers and have no power to enforce anything. They'll get involved in awareness campaigns and offer advice and do demos of RTI techniques and equipment, but they've been doing that for years. I've lost count of the number of cars I've helped cut up in town centres whilst dishing out leaflets and keyrings and pens during years of Fatal Four programmes. No Chief Fire Officer worth the rank would jeopardise the relationship with the public by turning firefighters into jumped up little jobsworths and the FBU wouldn't let it happen anyway.
I would respectively suggest you are wrong about fire service involvement in Wales as this Welsh Government article affirms
offer them the opportunity to watch an educational video rather than face a fine of prosecution.
Given it's the fire service who hose the blood off the road after a collision, I can understand why they are getting involved.
It was also the fire service who scared the shit out of me when I was 17, touring Scotland's rural secondary schools to explain what happens when you hit a tree at 60mph.
Rather serious story about India being alleged to have links to the murder of a prominent campaigner for a Sikh state: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66848041
The Welsh 20 mph petition is now really picking up steam. 109,135.
I assume because a lot of Welsh drivers have only just made it home.
Drivers in Wales have experienced the reality of default 20mph and do not like it
It doesn't have to be this way as there is a case for 20mph round schools, hospitals and congested areas, but blanket no
In England there is no way to enforce 20mph limits. There aren't any police to stand on every 20mph road with a laser gun, there isn't the money for speed cameras, there isn't even money to build restrictions to force 20mph such as humps or chicanes.
In short it is window-dressing trying to encourage drivers to slow down. An effective advisory limit. So I can't see how Wales will be any different and I expect that most drivers will drive closer to 30mph than 20mph.
I hope common sense will prevail and as @Penddu2 said earlier ( see 7.15am) the petition will require a Senedd discussion with the likely confirmation that powers will be vested in LAs
Mind you on the day fire stations are threatened with closures in Wales, the fire service are being enrolled to assist in enforcement
Penddu stated that the powers *already* sit with the LAs. Which is slightly different from your DRAKEFORD DID THIS spin.
It sounds like the 20mph zones are too long - then again the 30mph zone they replaced may have been too slow. That - again - is for the council to resolve.
This measure will save lives and change behaviours. And just like the bans on driving home from the pub with no seatbelt, people will get used to it and accept it quickly enough.
You have not been following my comments then as it was Plaid who reigned in Drakeford as I said at the time and as @Penddu2 commented on in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his piece
So you agree that the poor implementation of 20mph limits sits with the council? Good! So not Drakeford's fault after all.
Again, people complained that they couldn't drive home drunk. They soon got used to it, and not because they were at serious risk of getting nicked. Society has made it unacceptable. It has become self-enforcing. And driving slower in urban areas will be the same.
You won't be at much risk of a speed trap catching you - a total lack of resources. But the pressure to conform will be there whether you Tories like it or not.
Again it is only because Plaid intervened to reign in Drakeford and I agree with the 20mph restrictions by schools and congested areas but that on the evidence yesterday some roads need to be reviewed
Unusual for you and me to disagree BigG, but I am very keen on 20mph zones. It might encourage people to do 30mph instead of 40mph the latter which generally happens in current 30 zones such as my village. There is a huge huge difference in fatality between a child hit by a car doing 40 and a car doing 30. There will always be gits that greatly exceed the limit whatever it is, but many people will think twice about doing 40 if the speed limit is 20.
I think the issue - on the basis of this guardian article - is that her complaint appears to be that she was only 16 at the time, not that she did not give consent.
The difficult bit will be proving whether despite her consent he was coercive or abusive.
Odd moment of mental displacement this morning at the station coffee booth.
Woman behind the counter - late middle aged, mumsy, strong London accent. Makes me coffee. The radio in the background is playing a very French chanson. Emphasis on the “-e” at the end of each phrase. I get the coffee. Say “merci” forgetting where I am. She replies with a reflexive “de rien”.
There are many French ex pats in this area but I never thought cockney grandma at the station would be one of them. A little morning vignette, a flicker of who do you think you are. I wonder what her story is.
It’s more intriguing still when you get these sorts of encounters in an out of the way corner of the country. Like the Italian mamma of Pontypandy in Fireman Sam. I often wonder when I pass a village Chinese takeaway in a remote part of Powys or a Tandoori restaurant on the Isle of Man.
The Welsh 20 mph petition is now really picking up steam. 109,135.
I assume because a lot of Welsh drivers have only just made it home.
Drivers in Wales have experienced the reality of default 20mph and do not like it
It doesn't have to be this way as there is a case for 20mph round schools, hospitals and congested areas, but blanket no
In England there is no way to enforce 20mph limits. There aren't any police to stand on every 20mph road with a laser gun, there isn't the money for speed cameras, there isn't even money to build restrictions to force 20mph such as humps or chicanes.
In short it is window-dressing trying to encourage drivers to slow down. An effective advisory limit. So I can't see how Wales will be any different and I expect that most drivers will drive closer to 30mph than 20mph.
I hope common sense will prevail and as @Penddu2 said earlier ( see 7.15am) the petition will require a Senedd discussion with the likely confirmation that powers will be vested in LAs
Mind you on the day fire stations are threatened with closures in Wales, the fire service are being enrolled to assist in enforcement
Calm down, old fella. The fire service can't get involved in "enforcement". They're not coppers and have no power to enforce anything. They'll get involved in awareness campaigns and offer advice and do demos of RTI techniques and equipment, but they've been doing that for years. I've lost count of the number of cars I've helped cut up in town centres whilst dishing out leaflets and keyrings and pens during years of Fatal Four programmes. No Chief Fire Officer worth the rank would jeopardise the relationship with the public by turning firefighters into jumped up little jobsworths and the FBU wouldn't let it happen anyway.
I would respectively suggest you are wrong about fire service involvement in Wales as this Welsh Government article affirms
That's not enforcement. The fire service have no authority to stop traffic unless it is in the course of their duties relating to fire/rescue. I've done similar during campaigns alongside the police at accident blackspots. The coppers do the enforcing. The fire service will give the drivers a pep talk, some leaflets and a pen/keyring/fridge magnet. They'll then talk about smoke detectors and offer them a home visit to fit one if they don't. So, respectfully, the fire service will not be enforcing anything. They have no legal power to enforce anything. Any firefighter who gets ideas above their station and starts thinking they are Dirty Harry will get a stiff talking to from wiser heads.
It doesn't reflect well on Boris, but it also doesn't reflect well on the Civil Service either. Many of those interviewed came across as quite arrogant, particularly Lord MacDonald, with a "this is how we've always done things attitude"
I'd be interested to know if they think the system is working better now. Clearly, Rishi is probably more to the Civil Service's liking but the Government is failing to deliver on his pledges.
I'm of the view that actually the system did actually need a really good shake up but the tragedy is that Boris and Truss weren't able to manage it due to personal failings (lack of seriousness and organisation from Boris, lack of communication skills from Truss).
And so now we will go back to insiders who will fail, but fail in an acceptable manner.
Much of Cummings critique of the civil service was and remains valid. The lack of understanding of statistics, maths and analytical skills, the pompous and pointless emphasis on precedent, hallowed procedures and the lack of technical skills for anything complicated. Unfortunately, and as per usual, his solutions did not work through to meaningful improvements. It was an opportunity to improve governance in this country but neither Cummings nor Boris had the stamina for it.
A favourite was being told by a high flyer in the Cabinet Office that IT projects had to be done with waterfall methodology. Anything else was anathema. He even used the word “incompetent”.
The high flyer in question had no training in (or understanding of) IT project management.
It could have been worse, he could have insisted that all projects were "Agile". "Minimum viable product" is a contender with "replacement bus service" as the most disappointing 3-word phrase in the English language.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
The idea that victims have to behave in a specific way is one of the reasons why society does poorly at stopping sexual harassment.
Exactly. "Victims" don't have to be "innocent". They may have made a lot of stupid mistakes or put themselves at risk. They may be vengeful after the event and angry. None of this is relevant. What is relevant is whether there was consent at the time freely given.
Indeed, but equally there is the reality that although Brand is an obvious tosser (and completely unfunny IMO) he is innocent until proven guilty, and there have been cases where numerous people have made allegations against public figures and it has been demonstrated that they are not true, or at least not true enough to be proven beyond teh reasonable doubt.
I don't understand why this story is as prominent as it is - Russell Brand isn't at his peak of fame any more and this wasn't really secret considering the number of women who had previously made comments about his abusive behaviour out in the open.
But it seems clear to me that there is still a large strain of anti-feminist backlash, that hated #MeToo and the ability for women to hold abusive men to account, and those people are backing Brand. That people seem to be focussing on whether or not a 30yo dating a 16 yo is legal or not instead of interrogating the allegations of physical abuse, psychological abuse and rape is disappointing. Defend age gaps all you want, but it seems to me indicative of a man looking for relationships with a large gap in relative power which, when coupled with these allegations, highlights his pattern of abuse.
The story is prominent because, as Rochdale points out, he is a media creation. They nurtured him, feted him, overlooked the content because it is obvious his absolute tosserness might easily include such behaviour as is being alleged now, and now there has been an uproar and that very same media (Graun, New Statesman, Ch4) are doing their best to absolve themselves of any guilt whatsoever, what me guv?
Which has in turn brought in so-called "disrupters" such as Musk who are taking against the MSM.
All very simple to understand.
Yes. What Brand thinks or says or allegedly does isn't the issue for most of the people in the pile on. He has become one of these totemic figures - someone who projects this mad image, gets amplified, then can only ever be the madness.
He is anti-mainstream / anti-woke / anti-establishment / anti-rules depending on your perspective. So must either be defended or attacked at all costs depending where you sit on those cultural divide issues.
Remember the film Network? Russell Brand is what the news anchor back then would be today. "Get your I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not going to Take It Anymore" merch on my Patreon" etc
I think the issue - on the basis of this guardian article - is that her complaint appears to be that she was only 16 at the time, not that she did not give consent.
The difficult bit will be proving whether despite her consent he was coercive or abusive.
Not wanting to stray in to amateur legal commentary, but I don't think that this will be relevant given the date of the alleged offences.
The fact that that embarrassment beat Rishi in a vote of the party membership is a stain on the party and indeed Rishi that he must be desperate to gloss over. This is the same party membership who preferred IDS to Ken Clarke which I thought at the time was possibly the ultimate in delusion but, given that they were in office at the time and picking our PM, this tops even that.
Not fit for purpose.
The purpose of a political party is to get people elected who represent its interests and views, not as obedient voting fodder handing a series of smarmy dickheads the keys to No. 10. The grassroots Tory Party has had a broadly settled eurosceptic and low tax preference for decades. Why exactly do you feel that they should be obliged to elect Kenneth Clarke or Rishi Sunak? Would Change UK, the Lib Dems or Labour accept a leaver as their leader?
That may be the purpose of a political party but the purpose of government is to govern for the whole country. Any political party seeking power needs to accept that.
That is not true. A Labour government will introduce taxes on private schools. That means it will not be governing for eg @Casino_Royale. No doubt there are others like him. They have made a decision that higher taxes on private schools are better for society, and, in the end, for Casino. Just as an eg Conservative govt believes lower taxes and being anti-EU is better for society and for the most radical high tax leftists.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
I watched Dispatches last night. A lot of reflections on it, but as an aside - I wasn’t familiar with his work at the time really; just knew of him as a celeb.
But Christ alive, his comedy was really nasty and unfunny. Obviously the doco pulls excerpts which are apt for the content (horribly so) but there’s not really much wit or invention there. Edgelord nonsense in a silly faux-cockerney voice. Also his Radio 2 stuff was unbelievably garbage - hard to credit now that he was given a slot. There was a real nastiness about the cultural landscape in the late 2000s (see also Vice magazine).
Also he aged *badly*; a very handsome youth but quite the minger in his 30s onwards; now looking pretty pathetic and embarrassing.
Whether or not any convictions come of this (and I think they will) it’s a slam dunk on his character. Horrible man.
I happen to think Mrs Brown's Boys is not that funny. Others think it is the last word in hysterically funny comedy.
Funny old world, eh.
Mrs. Brown's Boys has a 'Carry On' type of appeal and its messages are socially quite liberal. It's big failing is it's basically one joke repeated over and over.
Brand OTOH was just cruel, nasty and stupid throughout.
I was going to reply this but you did it for me. MBB not my cup of tea and it’s a useful shorthand for ‘inexplicably popular’ but tbh it’s not *that* bad and it certainly isn’t actively nasty.
I watched Dispatches last night. A lot of reflections on it, but as an aside - I wasn’t familiar with his work at the time really; just knew of him as a celeb.
But Christ alive, his comedy was really nasty and unfunny. Obviously the doco pulls excerpts which are apt for the content (horribly so) but there’s not really much wit or invention there. Edgelord nonsense in a silly faux-cockerney voice. Also his Radio 2 stuff was unbelievably garbage - hard to credit now that he was given a slot. There was a real nastiness about the cultural landscape in the late 2000s (see also Vice magazine).
Also he aged *badly*; a very handsome youth but quite the minger in his 30s onwards; now looking pretty pathetic and embarrassing.
Whether or not any convictions come of this (and I think they will) it’s a slam dunk on his character. Horrible man.
I happen to think Mrs Brown's Boys is not that funny. Others think it is the last word in hysterically funny comedy.
Funny old world, eh.
Mrs. Browns Boys has a 'Carry On' type of appeal and its messages are socially quite liberal. It's big failing is it's basically one joke repeated over and over.
Brand OTOH was just cruel, nasty and stupid throughout.
I know we all have exquisite taste and know the difference between a Monet and a Manet (and a Pouilly Fuisse and Pouilly Fume for that matter) but this is the intersection of bad taste and censorship.
Again, not making any allowances whatsoever for any criminal activity, Brand has huge appeal to plenty of people for all kinds of reasons. Not you, it seems, but so what. You aren't his intended audience. You think it is cruel, nasty, and stupid. None of those things are necessarily illegal so I'm not getting the outrage.
I haven't followed Brand's career at all, but during lockdown I watched Re:Birth standup on Netflix. It was patchy but there were a few laughs. He seemed quite engaging in a narcissistic way. A bit of self-deprecation mixed in with the self-obsession.
The Welsh 20 mph petition is now really picking up steam. 109,135.
I assume because a lot of Welsh drivers have only just made it home.
Drivers in Wales have experienced the reality of default 20mph and do not like it
It doesn't have to be this way as there is a case for 20mph round schools, hospitals and congested areas, but blanket no
In England there is no way to enforce 20mph limits. There aren't any police to stand on every 20mph road with a laser gun, there isn't the money for speed cameras, there isn't even money to build restrictions to force 20mph such as humps or chicanes.
In short it is window-dressing trying to encourage drivers to slow down. An effective advisory limit. So I can't see how Wales will be any different and I expect that most drivers will drive closer to 30mph than 20mph.
I hope common sense will prevail and as @Penddu2 said earlier ( see 7.15am) the petition will require a Senedd discussion with the likely confirmation that powers will be vested in LAs
Mind you on the day fire stations are threatened with closures in Wales, the fire service are being enrolled to assist in enforcement
Calm down, old fella. The fire service can't get involved in "enforcement". They're not coppers and have no power to enforce anything. They'll get involved in awareness campaigns and offer advice and do demos of RTI techniques and equipment, but they've been doing that for years. I've lost count of the number of cars I've helped cut up in town centres whilst dishing out leaflets and keyrings and pens during years of Fatal Four programmes. No Chief Fire Officer worth the rank would jeopardise the relationship with the public by turning firefighters into jumped up little jobsworths and the FBU wouldn't let it happen anyway.
I would respectively suggest you are wrong about fire service involvement in Wales as this Welsh Government article affirms
Yes, that link is the very definition of what @twistedfirestopper3 described. Firemen are not and will not be "enforcing" - nicking people - 20mph limits.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It's not been peer reviewed yet, so firstly I'd like to wait for that. Also, whilst one of the authors is a psychologist who worked at the Tavistock, the second is just listed as an independent researcher who has no other citations I can find? It is also noted that it's a small sample (44 kids) going so far as to say "given the relatively low proportion of the sample in the clinical or borderline range, the rates of clinically significant change should be treated with caution" and that the "rate of around 20% reliable improvement is not dissimilar to other CAMHS service evaluations" - so this could just be that child mental health services in the UK are generally shit (as someone who experienced them as a teen in the mid-late 00s, that is a factor I would personally be willing to back).
If I were in the business of trying to point to other factors that have a causal link to deterioration in self reported mental health that haven't been assessed I would also look at the general state of the healthcare for trans youth, the treatment of trans youth by their peers, acceptance by the parents of the treatment - and so on. This data set is from 2011-2014, where much of the attacks on trans people were not played out in the media and most people had a low level prejudice against trans people, so the weight given to social factors would be interesting to determine.
It seems to be an outlier from all existing research, so it would be useful to have more research on this topic going deeper - but it doesn't seem to be particularly strong evidence for puberty blockers actively harming trans youth.
The Welsh 20 mph petition is now really picking up steam. 109,135.
I assume because a lot of Welsh drivers have only just made it home.
Drivers in Wales have experienced the reality of default 20mph and do not like it
It doesn't have to be this way as there is a case for 20mph round schools, hospitals and congested areas, but blanket no
In England there is no way to enforce 20mph limits. There aren't any police to stand on every 20mph road with a laser gun, there isn't the money for speed cameras, there isn't even money to build restrictions to force 20mph such as humps or chicanes.
In short it is window-dressing trying to encourage drivers to slow down. An effective advisory limit. So I can't see how Wales will be any different and I expect that most drivers will drive closer to 30mph than 20mph.
I hope common sense will prevail and as @Penddu2 said earlier ( see 7.15am) the petition will require a Senedd discussion with the likely confirmation that powers will be vested in LAs
Mind you on the day fire stations are threatened with closures in Wales, the fire service are being enrolled to assist in enforcement
Calm down, old fella. The fire service can't get involved in "enforcement". They're not coppers and have no power to enforce anything. They'll get involved in awareness campaigns and offer advice and do demos of RTI techniques and equipment, but they've been doing that for years. I've lost count of the number of cars I've helped cut up in town centres whilst dishing out leaflets and keyrings and pens during years of Fatal Four programmes. No Chief Fire Officer worth the rank would jeopardise the relationship with the public by turning firefighters into jumped up little jobsworths and the FBU wouldn't let it happen anyway.
I would respectively suggest you are wrong about fire service involvement in Wales as this Welsh Government article affirms
offer them the opportunity to watch an educational video rather than face a fine of prosecution.
Given it's the fire service who hose the blood off the road after a collision, I can understand why they are getting involved.
It was also the fire service who scared the shit out of me when I was 17, touring Scotland's rural secondary schools to explain what happens when you hit a tree at 60mph.
60mph? Thats a bit slow for round here...
EDIT - Police Scotland do not enforce speed limits, at least not up here in the NE. If someone was doing lunatic speed and caused a crash I'm sure they would get the book thrown at them.
Otherwise? Make progress. Car cruising speeds hit 70mph (on open single carriageways) quite easily, trucks drive at the 56mph limiter, nobody cares as long as the driving is sensible. Which it largely is. But through my village? We have speed display signs at either end, and people tend to park in a way which naturally enforces 30mph. Would be happier if it was 20mph though.
I don't understand why this story is as prominent as it is - Russell Brand isn't at his peak of fame any more and this wasn't really secret considering the number of women who had previously made comments about his abusive behaviour out in the open.
But it seems clear to me that there is still a large strain of anti-feminist backlash, that hated #MeToo and the ability for women to hold abusive men to account, and those people are backing Brand. That people seem to be focussing on whether or not a 30yo dating a 16 yo is legal or not instead of interrogating the allegations of physical abuse, psychological abuse and rape is disappointing. Defend age gaps all you want, but it seems to me indicative of a man looking for relationships with a large gap in relative power which, when coupled with these allegations, highlights his pattern of abuse.
The story is prominent because, as Rochdale points out, he is a media creation. They nurtured him, feted him, overlooked the content because it is obvious his absolute tosserness might easily include such behaviour as is being alleged now, and now there has been an uproar and that very same media (Graun, New Statesman, Ch4) are doing their best to absolve themselves of any guilt whatsoever, what me guv? ...
Are they doing that ? Or are they fessing up to have made some serious errors of judgment ?
From the way both the Guardian and BBC have reported this, the latter seems slightly more likely.
I don't understand why this story is as prominent as it is - Russell Brand isn't at his peak of fame any more and this wasn't really secret considering the number of women who had previously made comments about his abusive behaviour out in the open.
But it seems clear to me that there is still a large strain of anti-feminist backlash, that hated #MeToo and the ability for women to hold abusive men to account, and those people are backing Brand. That people seem to be focussing on whether or not a 30yo dating a 16 yo is legal or not instead of interrogating the allegations of physical abuse, psychological abuse and rape is disappointing. Defend age gaps all you want, but it seems to me indicative of a man looking for relationships with a large gap in relative power which, when coupled with these allegations, highlights his pattern of abuse.
The story is prominent because, as Rochdale points out, he is a media creation. They nurtured him, feted him, overlooked the content because it is obvious his absolute tosserness might easily include such behaviour as is being alleged now, and now there has been an uproar and that very same media (Graun, New Statesman, Ch4) are doing their best to absolve themselves of any guilt whatsoever, what me guv? ...
Are they doing that ? Or are they fessing up to have made some serious errors of judgment ?
From the way both the Guardian and BBC have reported this, the latter seems slightly more likely.
His entire schtick is getting criticised which is why of course they employed him in the first place.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
The Welsh 20 mph petition is now really picking up steam. 109,135.
I assume because a lot of Welsh drivers have only just made it home.
Drivers in Wales have experienced the reality of default 20mph and do not like it
It doesn't have to be this way as there is a case for 20mph round schools, hospitals and congested areas, but blanket no
In England there is no way to enforce 20mph limits. There aren't any police to stand on every 20mph road with a laser gun, there isn't the money for speed cameras, there isn't even money to build restrictions to force 20mph such as humps or chicanes.
In short it is window-dressing trying to encourage drivers to slow down. An effective advisory limit. So I can't see how Wales will be any different and I expect that most drivers will drive closer to 30mph than 20mph.
I hope common sense will prevail and as @Penddu2 said earlier ( see 7.15am) the petition will require a Senedd discussion with the likely confirmation that powers will be vested in LAs
Mind you on the day fire stations are threatened with closures in Wales, the fire service are being enrolled to assist in enforcement
Penddu stated that the powers *already* sit with the LAs. Which is slightly different from your DRAKEFORD DID THIS spin.
It sounds like the 20mph zones are too long - then again the 30mph zone they replaced may have been too slow. That - again - is for the council to resolve.
This measure will save lives and change behaviours. And just like the bans on driving home from the pub with no seatbelt, people will get used to it and accept it quickly enough.
You have not been following my comments then as it was Plaid who reigned in Drakeford as I said at the time and as @Penddu2 commented on in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his piece
So you agree that the poor implementation of 20mph limits sits with the council? Good! So not Drakeford's fault after all.
Again, people complained that they couldn't drive home drunk. They soon got used to it, and not because they were at serious risk of getting nicked. Society has made it unacceptable. It has become self-enforcing. And driving slower in urban areas will be the same.
You won't be at much risk of a speed trap catching you - a total lack of resources. But the pressure to conform will be there whether you Tories like it or not.
Again it is only because Plaid intervened to reign in Drakeford and I agree with the 20mph restrictions by schools and congested areas but that on the evidence yesterday some roads need to be reviewed
Unusual for you and me to disagree BigG, but I am very keen on 20mph zones. It might encourage people to do 30mph instead of 40mph the latter which generally happens in current 30 zones such as my village. There is a huge huge difference in fatality between a child hit by a car doing 40 and a car doing 30. There will always be gits that greatly exceed the limit whatever it is, but many people will think twice about doing 40 if the speed limit is 20.
We don't really disagree
In many cases the 20mph zones are justified and have been in place around schools and congested roads for a long time
Where the controversy is causing anger is here in Wales where a statutory reduction in all 30mph area to 20mph has been applied with some leeway for councils to amend back to 30mph
It appears, certainly here in North Wales, to have had fewer exemptions and the petition, which now exceeds over 135,000 signatures, will require the Senedd to address the issue with the likely outcome that local authorities will review more of the restrictions and indeed the Welsh Government to provide an assessment of the progress of the scheme after 6 months
It will be interesting to see if Starmer is prepared to follow Welsh labour with a similar change for England
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I think it’s more concerning that, say, Elon Musk is backing Brand now, after these (credible) allegations came out, than that the Guardian did many years ago, before these allegations came out.
I think those are weasel words. The Graun employed him because he was edgy. Allegations followed but no one didn't know the type of person Brand was and that is precisely why they employed him.
Edit: and who cares who Musk backs. He doesn't get to determine right or wrong any more than the chairman of Three mobile network does.
A large number of companies have employed Brand over the years, some for longer and paying more money than The Guardian. I hope all of them are reflecting on what happened.
Why are you picking out The Guardian in particular? Were they particularly likely to know more about allegations? Do you know they failed to act on a complaint they received? Or is it you just don't like The Guardian?
Today is the start of the 3-day hearing of the Scottish government's petition against the UK government's S.35 Order preventing the GRR Bill from getting Royal Assent.
All the relevant submissions can be read online. I am looking forward to it for a number of reasons:-
1. The legal arguments are interesting and I don't think it is necessarily obvious which way the court will rule.
2. There will be acres of misinformed commentary to enjoy and, on occasion, rebut.
3. A ruling is unlikely to happen quickly - and will therefore happen in the months leading up to a General Election. Whatever the decision it will likely be appealed and so we will have a legal cat among the electoral pigeons. This may well have consequences for the SNP/Labour battle in Scotland and, possibly, more widely.
Additionally in October there is the hearing of the appeal by For Women Scotland against the decision by Lady Haldane on the meaning of "sex" in the Equality Act. (Lady Haldane is also hearing the S.35 petition.) While that appeal related to Scottish legislation on the representation of women on public boards, it does potentially have wider implications. If "sex" does not include "legal sex" following a GRC but only biological sex, then who cares if every Tom, Dick (sorry!) or Harry can get a GRC because it will give them no rights to access single sex spaces, services or association. In short, a win for FWS may undermine the reasons for the S.35 Order.
Of course the Scottish government is arguing the opposite - that it does extend the definition and that this does not undermine the Equality Act. So you can see the fun lawyers will have.
Honestly, I can sense your excitement from here!
Good old Scotland - providing us with such treats!
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
A well designed trial attempts to control for that, but, yes, self-reported data is not great and shouldn’t be used as the sole basis for regulatory decisions
That is not true.
When mental health is the outcome of interest, as here, self-reported data is usually used in regulatory decisions, because someone's mental health is something that can only be self-reported. You can't measure someone's depression well without talking to them.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
A pedant writes: it could be a Hawthorne effect (where being studied makes a difference). There were no placebos here. Frankly, it sounds like random variation. More research is needed. Please send grant money to...
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
A well designed trial attempts to control for that, but, yes, self-reported data is not great and shouldn’t be used as the sole basis for regulatory decisions
That is not true.
When mental health is the outcome of interest, as here, self-reported data is usually used in regulatory decisions, because someone's mental health is something that can only be self-reported. You can't measure someone's depression well without talking to them.
I agree - although I am always wary of other people (especially parents) also doing reporting on mental health for basically the same reason (as well as the issue of not knowing the degree to which the parents have general concerns about transition). I, for one, didn't tell my dad I was on antidepressants (which I started at 14) because he was a major factor in my depression. Granted for trans youth healthcare parental consent is typically required and is reasonable, but there is still a lot going on at that time in adolescence that kids will hide from their parents and will potentially skew their reporting.
Whatever one's thoughts on ULEZ, the fact that someone spent £100ks spreading anti ULEZ messages and disinformation via fake social media accounts is worrying. Who was it, and what is their agenda?
Is it a fact? The research he cites just says there are fake accounts but the monetary figure is pure speculation based on the cost of buying fake followers, but that wouldn’t apply if the fake accounts are all controlled by the same person.
How could this one person get control of so many fake accounts?
Creating them, quite often.
There’s a whole world of fake online armies - followers, attackers etc - that can be hired for a price.
I know, but williamglenn was suggesting that they weren't hired in this case.
A group of Welsh lorry drivers also apologised in advance as they vowed to trundle along at 19mph in opposition to the plans.
Talk about threatening with a good time.
A good time or increased delivery times (and therefore costs)? Even if 20mph is a good thing, it will be a good thing on balance, not because there are no downsides.
Ignore the hyped up petition on Welsh 20 mph limit - by first removing all signatures from outside of Wales. It will still be a high number though and as such will trigger a debate in the Senedd. This debate will highlight the facts that: 1. The policy was initially promoted by the Conservatives 2. Poorly communicated by Labour 3. Modified to be more realistc by Plaid 4. Generally supported by the majority, the emergency services and NHS 5. Objected to by the same people who objected to wearing seatbelts, banning indoor smoking, Covid vaccinations etc 6. Power to apply 30mph limits instead of 20mph lies with local councils (of varying political persuasions) and not with the Welsh Government. If you dont like a 20mph on a particular stretch of road take it up with your Council.
I predict that an outcome of the debate will be to establish a national review of 20 mph implementation with a subcommittee established in every counci to agree specific routes. It will not result in change of policy.
Good morning
A very good post on the issue which I generally agree with especially paragraph 6
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
A pedant writes: it could be a Hawthorne effect (where being studied makes a difference). There were no placebos here. Frankly, it sounds like random variation. More research is needed. Please send grant money to...
Much as I admire and support pedantry, there can still be a placebo effect. It is possible that the treatment has no effect, but that people on the treatment felt better because they believed in it, which is a placebo effect. A placebo effect can occur in reaction to things other than placebos.
On the speed limits, there's two A-roads that cris-cross my village. I think these should be 30. The remaining roads, including the one none cul-de-sac that potentially skips the lights with the intersection should be 20.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
A well designed trial attempts to control for that, but, yes, self-reported data is not great and shouldn’t be used as the sole basis for regulatory decisions
That is not true.
When mental health is the outcome of interest, as here, self-reported data is usually used in regulatory decisions, because someone's mental health is something that can only be self-reported. You can't measure someone's depression well without talking to them.
But you can dunk a rat in a bucket of water and see how long it swims…
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
A pedant writes: it could be a Hawthorne effect (where being studied makes a difference). There were no placebos here. Frankly, it sounds like random variation. More research is needed. Please send grant money to...
"There couldn't be a placebo effect because the study didn't include a placebo."
Today is the start of the 3-day hearing of the Scottish government's petition against the UK government's S.35 Order preventing the GRR Bill from getting Royal Assent.
All the relevant submissions can be read online. I am looking forward to it for a number of reasons:-
1. The legal arguments are interesting and I don't think it is necessarily obvious which way the court will rule.
2. There will be acres of misinformed commentary to enjoy and, on occasion, rebut.
3. A ruling is unlikely to happen quickly - and will therefore happen in the months leading up to a General Election. Whatever the decision it will likely be appealed and so we will have a legal cat among the electoral pigeons. This may well have consequences for the SNP/Labour battle in Scotland and, possibly, more widely.
Additionally in October there is the hearing of the appeal by For Women Scotland against the decision by Lady Haldane on the meaning of "sex" in the Equality Act. (Lady Haldane is also hearing the S.35 petition.) While that appeal related to Scottish legislation on the representation of women on public boards, it does potentially have wider implications. If "sex" does not include "legal sex" following a GRC but only biological sex, then who cares if every Tom, Dick (sorry!) or Harry can get a GRC because it will give them no rights to access single sex spaces, services or association. In short, a win for FWS may undermine the reasons for the S.35 Order.
Of course the Scottish government is arguing the opposite - that it does extend the definition and that this does not undermine the Equality Act. So you can see the fun lawyers will have.
Honestly, I can sense your excitement from here!
Good old Scotland - providing us with such treats!
Thanks - this one will be fascinating. I have some objections to the GRR legislation. But I also have objections to Westminster simply choosing to overrule stuff it has decided to disagree with for tactical partisan reasons.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
I looked into the original study before it reported - I was consulted by a colleague on the feasibility of piggy-backing on the data collected for another, independent study. I won't go into the details, but I had a number of concerns about the data collection and representativeness. Not really criticisms of the team, who I believe had a sincere desire to explore the data, but more in terms of the limitations of what they were able to access easily.
There's another study onoging that is using representative(ish) population data, but that has it's own limitations around data recording. A further study using similar data to the Tavistock study but with a larger and more representative sample and more followup is also going through approvals (ethics etc). Both those linked to the Cass review.
bondegezou has answered the epidemiology questions on this - nothing wrong with self report (there isn't another way for this, really) with validated scales, but before/after has limitations as does the lack of a control group (but even then, unless randomising, the group that didn't get blockers would probably differ in ways that were not easily measurable/controllable for anyway).
What's interesting is that the original study didn't show the benefits of the Dutch study, which itself had a number of issues and this reanalysis makes an important point about an overall mean no effect not meaning that it has no effect for anyone or even most people.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
I looked into the original study before it reported - I was consulted by a colleague on the feasibility of piggy-backing on the data collected for another, independent study. I won't go into the details, but I had a number of concerns about the data collection and representativeness. Not really criticisms of the team, who I believe had a sincere desire to explore the data, but more in terms of the limitations of what they were able to access easily.
There's another study onoging that is using representative(ish) population data, but that has it's own limitations around data recording. A further study using similar data to the Tavistock study but with a larger and more representative sample and more followup is also going through approvals (ethics etc). Both those linked to the Cass review.
@bondegezou has answered the epidemiology questions on this - nothing wrong with self report (there isn't another way for this, really) with validated scales, but before/after has limitations as does the lack of a control group (but even then, unless randomising, the group that didn't get blockers would probably differ in ways that were not easily measurable/controllable for anyway).
What's interesting is that the original study didn't show the benefits of the Dutch study, which itself had a number of issues and this reanalysis makes an important point about an overall mean no effect not meaning that it has no effect for anyone or even most people.
Interesting. Thanks.
All research is a pragmatic compromise between the ideals (random sampling, study design, follow-up etc.) and what is feasible given time, budget, ethical requirements, and so on.
And Liz Truss has the right to feel slightly aggrieved ? ... “Johnson and his top adviser, Dominic Cummings, came up with an eye-catching suggestion: why not just NOT do an OBR forecast? The idea was voiced by the PM himself in one of the last meetings to discuss the package. ‘Can’t we just not bother with the OBR?’ Johnson asked Javid,” Riley-Smith wrote...
On the speed limits, there's two A-roads that cris-cross my village. I think these should be 30. The remaining roads, including the one none cul-de-sac that potentially skips the lights with the intersection should be 20.
Hopefully common sense applies when these speed limit changes are made and that some 30s become 20s (urban, through villages, etc), but others where there is a lot less risk stay at 30. I can think of roads where I am surprised it is 30 and not 40 often with no sign, but designated by the frequency of street lights. Some of these dropping to 20 would be silly if the road is safe and there is little or no pedestrian activity.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
A pedant writes: it could be a Hawthorne effect (where being studied makes a difference). There were no placebos here. Frankly, it sounds like random variation. More research is needed. Please send grant money to...
"There couldn't be a placebo effect because the study didn't include a placebo."
Oh God.
As a general point, although clinical trials with a placebo are rightly seen as a gold standard, there are a lot of trials that don't have one due to the ethical issues.
Principally there can be circumstances, particularly where alternative courses of treatment exist, where it isn't just a white lie to give a placebo but you're denying them the alternative course of treatment as part of the deception.
I don't know if that's the case here, and haven't looked into the detail, but lack of a placebo doesn't somehow automatically invalidate a trial.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
I looked into the original study before it reported - I was consulted by a colleague on the feasibility of piggy-backing on the data collected for another, independent study. I won't go into the details, but I had a number of concerns about the data collection and representativeness. Not really criticisms of the team, who I believe had a sincere desire to explore the data, but more in terms of the limitations of what they were able to access easily.
There's another study onoging that is using representative(ish) population data, but that has it's own limitations around data recording. A further study using similar data to the Tavistock study but with a larger and more representative sample and more followup is also going through approvals (ethics etc). Both those linked to the Cass review.
@bondegezou has answered the epidemiology questions on this - nothing wrong with self report (there isn't another way for this, really) with validated scales, but before/after has limitations as does the lack of a control group (but even then, unless randomising, the group that didn't get blockers would probably differ in ways that were not easily measurable/controllable for anyway).
What's interesting is that the original study didn't show the benefits of the Dutch study, which itself had a number of issues and this reanalysis makes an important point about an overall mean no effect not meaning that it has no effect for anyone or even most people.
Interesting. Thanks.
All research is a pragmatic compromise between the ideals (random sampling, study design, follow-up etc.) and what is feasible given time, budget, ethical requirements, and so on.
Indeed. This one is actually published, twice, and that counts for a lot, even if imperfect. I'm not completely convinced the improved/larger one will get to that point - once the Cass review has reported I'm not sure it will be a priority any more, but we'll see. The routine records study (CPRD, linked HES etc) will be completed and give an interesting comparison though.
And Liz Truss has the right to feel slightly aggrieved ? ... “Johnson and his top adviser, Dominic Cummings, came up with an eye-catching suggestion: why not just NOT do an OBR forecast? The idea was voiced by the PM himself in one of the last meetings to discuss the package. ‘Can’t we just not bother with the OBR?’ Johnson asked Javid,” Riley-Smith wrote...
Johnson, at least, didn't go through with the idea.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
A pedant writes: it could be a Hawthorne effect (where being studied makes a difference). There were no placebos here. Frankly, it sounds like random variation. More research is needed. Please send grant money to...
"There couldn't be a placebo effect because the study didn't include a placebo."
Oh God.
As a general point, although clinical trials with a placebo are rightly seen as a gold standard, there are a lot of trials that don't have one due to the ethical issues.
Principally there can be circumstances, particularly where alternative courses of treatment exist, where it isn't just a white lie to give a placebo but you're denying them the alternative course of treatment as part of the deception.
I don't know if that's the case here, and haven't looked into the detail, but lack of a placebo doesn't somehow automatically invalidate a trial.
Indeed. Most trials today are done against best current practice rather than against a placebo.
In this case, there was only one group, who were assessed before and after. There was no comparison group.
And Liz Truss has the right to feel slightly aggrieved ? ... “Johnson and his top adviser, Dominic Cummings, came up with an eye-catching suggestion: why not just NOT do an OBR forecast? The idea was voiced by the PM himself in one of the last meetings to discuss the package. ‘Can’t we just not bother with the OBR?’ Johnson asked Javid,” Riley-Smith wrote...
We need forecasts. You need a best guess as to how much cash you have before making decisions. The Tories set up the "independent" (as they always prefaced it) OBR to give a non-partisan set of numbers. That worked for them as a stick to bash Labour with. Less so when the OBR came out with numbers it dislikes.
Truss refused to get the OBR to do a forecast because she knows its assessment of her plan would be "this is fucking mental". If Boris! also proposed the same bypass of the independent OBR it was for the same reason. That Boris! proposed doing it does not excuse or somehow vindicate Truss for actually doing it.
No, what it shows is that the so-called Conservative Party can't be trusted with the nation's finances.
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I think it’s more concerning that, say, Elon Musk is backing Brand now, after these (credible) allegations came out, than that the Guardian did many years ago, before these allegations came out.
I think those are weasel words. The Graun employed him because he was edgy. Allegations followed but no one didn't know the type of person Brand was and that is precisely why they employed him.
Edit: and who cares who Musk backs. He doesn't get to determine right or wrong any more than the chairman of Three mobile network does.
A large number of companies have employed Brand over the years, some for longer and paying more money than The Guardian. I hope all of them are reflecting on what happened.
Why are you picking out The Guardian in particular? Were they particularly likely to know more about allegations? Do you know they failed to act on a complaint they received? Or is it you just don't like The Guardian?
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I have almost no interest in Brand. The media circus is IMHO significantly driven by the fact that he was succeeding outside of their realm - a threat. So of course there will be a pile on.
Marina Hyde is unusually and admirably self-critical about it:
O/T with Starmer visiting Macron today and other recent meetings with other foreign politicians is this normal and accepted protocol? Would for example, the French be ok if a year or so out from their election the British PM entertained a sitting President’s rival for the job? Or if the British PM met with Biden’s potential opponent (obviously would be mad to meet Trump).
I always thought it was something that’s not done but clearly incorrect.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
Someone without an essay on the perpetrator up their sleeve?
Today is the start of the 3-day hearing of the Scottish government's petition against the UK government's S.35 Order preventing the GRR Bill from getting Royal Assent.
All the relevant submissions can be read online. I am looking forward to it for a number of reasons:-
1. The legal arguments are interesting and I don't think it is necessarily obvious which way the court will rule.
2. There will be acres of misinformed commentary to enjoy and, on occasion, rebut.
3. A ruling is unlikely to happen quickly - and will therefore happen in the months leading up to a General Election. Whatever the decision it will likely be appealed and so we will have a legal cat among the electoral pigeons. This may well have consequences for the SNP/Labour battle in Scotland and, possibly, more widely.
Additionally in October there is the hearing of the appeal by For Women Scotland against the decision by Lady Haldane on the meaning of "sex" in the Equality Act. (Lady Haldane is also hearing the S.35 petition.) While that appeal related to Scottish legislation on the representation of women on public boards, it does potentially have wider implications. If "sex" does not include "legal sex" following a GRC but only biological sex, then who cares if every Tom, Dick (sorry!) or Harry can get a GRC because it will give them no rights to access single sex spaces, services or association. In short, a win for FWS may undermine the reasons for the S.35 Order.
Of course the Scottish government is arguing the opposite - that it does extend the definition and that this does not undermine the Equality Act. So you can see the fun lawyers will have.
Honestly, I can sense your excitement from here!
Good old Scotland - providing us with such treats!
Thanks. I hadn't followed this one. Is the basic issue that it isn't realistic for different parts of the UK to have a different understanding in law of who is a woman/man etc and that it would not be realistic for someone's legal gender identity to change at Berwick?
O/T with Starmer visiting Macron today and other recent meetings with other foreign politicians is this normal and accepted protocol? Would for example, the French be ok if a year or so out from their election the British PM entertained a sitting President’s rival for the job? Or if the British PM met with Biden’s potential opponent (obviously would be mad to meet Trump).
I always thought it was something that’s not done but clearly incorrect.
"US presidential contender Barack Obama on Saturday lunchtime met leader of the British opposition Conservative Party, David Cameron, at the House of Commons, his last engagement in London before flying back to the US at the end of his European and Middle Eastern tour. Obama had come from 10 Downing Street, where he had met British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Cameron took Obama onto College Green opposite the Houses of Parliament, before taking him back for a sit down chat in a sitting room in the House of Commons. Earlier, Obama met British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at his official residence, 10 Downing Street, where the two held talks before coming out into the garden behind Number 10. Pooled television images showed Brown offering Obama a chair on the terrace before the pair settled down for two hours of talks. They later took a stroll in the sunshine around Horse Guards Parade, the vast open space where military reviews, such as Trooping the Colour, are held. Tourists snapped pictures from a distance while security guards walked ahead of the two men. The stroll in the vast arena offered a photo opportunity with a London backdrop for Obama, whose visit to Britain has been relatively low-key, particularly after the huge crowds he drew earlier in the week in Germany. Speaking to reporters after wrapping up talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama said he had had a terrific conversation with Brown, which covered a wide range of topics including terrorism, climate change, and financial markets, as well as strengthening the trans-Atlantic relationship. Earlier, he met former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is now a Middle East envoy. The meeting lasted for just over an hour. Obama is winding up an election-season trip, financed by his campaign. Part of his goal for the trip through Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe has been to allow him to make his debut on the international stage, part of his campaign to show voters in the United States about his readiness for the presidency. On Friday, he had a meeting for more than an hour with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace in Paris."
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I have almost no interest in Brand. The media circus is IMHO significantly driven by the fact that he was succeeding outside of their realm - a threat. So of course there will be a pile on.
Marina Hyde is unusually and admirably self-critical about it:
Her "For a certain type of mournfully uncool man on the left, Russell Brand was quite the excitement" matches my "largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it would make the paper "relevant"".
It doesn't reflect well on Boris, but it also doesn't reflect well on the Civil Service either. Many of those interviewed came across as quite arrogant, particularly Lord MacDonald, with a "this is how we've always done things attitude"
I'd be interested to know if they think the system is working better now. Clearly, Rishi is probably more to the Civil Service's liking but the Government is failing to deliver on his pledges.
I'm of the view that actually the system did actually need a really good shake up but the tragedy is that Boris and Truss weren't able to manage it due to personal failings (lack of seriousness and organisation from Boris, lack of communication skills from Truss).
And so now we will go back to insiders who will fail, but fail in an acceptable manner.
Much of Cummings critique of the civil service was and remains valid. The lack of understanding of statistics, maths and analytical skills, the pompous and pointless emphasis on precedent, hallowed procedures and the lack of technical skills for anything complicated. Unfortunately, and as per usual, his solutions did not work through to meaningful improvements. It was an opportunity to improve governance in this country but neither Cummings nor Boris had the stamina for it.
A favourite was being told by a high flyer in the Cabinet Office that IT projects had to be done with waterfall methodology. Anything else was anathema. He even used the word “incompetent”.
The high flyer in question had no training in (or understanding of) IT project management.
Amazing. This would be the development methodology first described in detail by Winston Royce who said in his paper on software development methodology:
”I believe in this concept, but the implementation described above (i.e. Waterfall) is risky and invites failure.”
& goes on to describe an iterative design methodology where system design, implementation & testing are run in a tight loop, each iterating on the other that sounds an awful lot like the best bits of “Agile” methodologies.
In other words, pure waterfall has been known to be a terrible approach right from the outset & was described not as a valid method, but as an example of what not to do as it “invited failure”. Unfortunately for the author he apparently wasn’t loud enough in his condemnation & generations of managers have looked at the pretty waterfall pictures & gone away convinced that they know everything about software development ever since.
See Royce, Winston (1970), "Managing the Development of Large Software Systems" (PDF), Proceedings of IEEE WESCON, 26 (August): 1–9 for the gory details. PDF here: https://www.praxisframework.org/files/royce1970.pdf
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I have almost no interest in Brand. The media circus is IMHO significantly driven by the fact that he was succeeding outside of their realm - a threat. So of course there will be a pile on.
Marina Hyde is unusually and admirably self-critical about it:
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
Someone without an essay on the perpetrator up their sleeve?
I'm going to bite.
Why the fuck shouldn't she have an essay up her sleeve about him? Why shouldn't she have opinions? And share them?
We're meant to endure, are we, a man forcing his penis down our throat against our wishes so that we have to punch them in the stomach to get free? And then we're meant to be silent? And not talk about what has happened to us years later? Even though the scrote who's done this to us is paid handsomely to discuss intimate details about his life and publicly humiliate women for entertainment.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
A pedant writes: it could be a Hawthorne effect (where being studied makes a difference). There were no placebos here. Frankly, it sounds like random variation. More research is needed. Please send grant money to...
"There couldn't be a placebo effect because the study didn't include a placebo."
Oh God.
It must be a placebo effect because that is the only effect I've heard of.
O/T with Starmer visiting Macron today and other recent meetings with other foreign politicians is this normal and accepted protocol? Would for example, the French be ok if a year or so out from their election the British PM entertained a sitting President’s rival for the job? Or if the British PM met with Biden’s potential opponent (obviously would be mad to meet Trump).
I always thought it was something that’s not done but clearly incorrect.
Yes, these meetings happen all the time. They don't normally get the profile the Starmer-Macron meeting is getting but apart from the Mail's hysteria, the key point in less than 18 months Starmer may well be Prime MInister - Macron will be President until at least 2027 (unless he makes a spectacular mess of things).
There will also be plenty of lower level meetings - I imagine Reeves will have met her counterparts in Washington and Berlin for example. Clearly, with a US election due close to our election, that adds an element of uncertainty to all this.
While a new Government may represent change, there also has to be an element of continuity.
O/T with Starmer visiting Macron today and other recent meetings with other foreign politicians is this normal and accepted protocol? Would for example, the French be ok if a year or so out from their election the British PM entertained a sitting President’s rival for the job? Or if the British PM met with Biden’s potential opponent (obviously would be mad to meet Trump).
I always thought it was something that’s not done but clearly incorrect.
"US presidential contender Barack Obama on Saturday lunchtime met leader of the British opposition Conservative Party, David Cameron, at the House of Commons, his last engagement in London before flying back to the US at the end of his European and Middle Eastern tour. Obama had come from 10 Downing Street, where he had met British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Cameron took Obama onto College Green opposite the Houses of Parliament, before taking him back for a sit down chat in a sitting room in the House of Commons. Earlier, Obama met British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at his official residence, 10 Downing Street, where the two held talks before coming out into the garden behind Number 10. Pooled television images showed Brown offering Obama a chair on the terrace before the pair settled down for two hours of talks. They later took a stroll in the sunshine around Horse Guards Parade, the vast open space where military reviews, such as Trooping the Colour, are held. Tourists snapped pictures from a distance while security guards walked ahead of the two men. The stroll in the vast arena offered a photo opportunity with a London backdrop for Obama, whose visit to Britain has been relatively low-key, particularly after the huge crowds he drew earlier in the week in Germany. Speaking to reporters after wrapping up talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama said he had had a terrific conversation with Brown, which covered a wide range of topics including terrorism, climate change, and financial markets, as well as strengthening the trans-Atlantic relationship. Earlier, he met former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is now a Middle East envoy. The meeting lasted for just over an hour. Obama is winding up an election-season trip, financed by his campaign. Part of his goal for the trip through Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe has been to allow him to make his debut on the international stage, part of his campaign to show voters in the United States about his readiness for the presidency. On Friday, he had a meeting for more than an hour with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace in Paris."
Thanks - for some reason I had it in my head that this wasn’t done for diplomatic reasons but obviously I don’t have a clue.
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I have almost no interest in Brand. The media circus is IMHO significantly driven by the fact that he was succeeding outside of their realm - a threat. So of course there will be a pile on.
Marina Hyde is unusually and admirably self-critical about it:
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
A pedant writes: it could be a Hawthorne effect (where being studied makes a difference). There were no placebos here. Frankly, it sounds like random variation. More research is needed. Please send grant money to...
"There couldn't be a placebo effect because the study didn't include a placebo."
Oh God.
As a general point, although clinical trials with a placebo are rightly seen as a gold standard, there are a lot of trials that don't have one due to the ethical issues.
Principally there can be circumstances, particularly where alternative courses of treatment exist, where it isn't just a white lie to give a placebo but you're denying them the alternative course of treatment as part of the deception.
I don't know if that's the case here, and haven't looked into the detail, but lack of a placebo doesn't somehow automatically invalidate a trial.
A placebo study not usually the "Gold Standard"
The "Gold Standard" is a double blind case-control randomised trial. The control should be the best currently available and proven treatment.
If you do a trial with PillB against placebo, when PillA is already known to give reasonable results, then you have a problem when you show that PillB is statistically significantly better than placebo. You have no idea if PillB is better than PillA.
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I have almost no interest in Brand. The media circus is IMHO significantly driven by the fact that he was succeeding outside of their realm - a threat. So of course there will be a pile on.
Marina Hyde is unusually and admirably self-critical about it:
I should think for most people who thought about it Brand has always been a pariah. Anyone who thought he wasn't after the Sachs thing, which was years ago, is delusional.
People who deliberately present as attention seeking bullies very often prove to be exactly that.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
A well designed trial attempts to control for that, but, yes, self-reported data is not great and shouldn’t be used as the sole basis for regulatory decisions
That is not true.
When mental health is the outcome of interest, as here, self-reported data is usually used in regulatory decisions, because someone's mental health is something that can only be self-reported. You can't measure someone's depression well without talking to them.
“Sole” being the most important word
Patient diaries are useful but mainly used for secondary endpoints because of inherent variability
The fact that that embarrassment beat Rishi in a vote of the party membership is a stain on the party and indeed Rishi that he must be desperate to gloss over. This is the same party membership who preferred IDS to Ken Clarke which I thought at the time was possibly the ultimate in delusion but, given that they were in office at the time and picking our PM, this tops even that.
Not fit for purpose.
The purpose of a political party is to get people elected who represent its interests and views, not as obedient voting fodder handing a series of smarmy dickheads the keys to No. 10. The grassroots Tory Party has had a broadly settled eurosceptic and low tax preference for decades. Why exactly do you feel that they should be obliged to elect Kenneth Clarke or Rishi Sunak? Would Change UK, the Lib Dems or Labour accept a leaver as their leader?
That may be the purpose of a political party but the purpose of government is to govern for the whole country. Any political party seeking power needs to accept that.
Indeed, but then given accurate information about where the party stands, people can make an informed choice about who they elect.
I think it shows a marked paucity of insight to blame the Tory membership for electing either IDS or Truss, given that the PCP only gave them an alternative choice of Ken Clarke or Rishi Sunak, leaving Portillo on the bench back then, and Penny more recently. Not forgetting that it was Sunak and his loathsome Gavin Williamson orchestrated campaign that engineered him into a head to head with Truss, which he was still too shit to win.
It doesn't reflect well on Boris, but it also doesn't reflect well on the Civil Service either. Many of those interviewed came across as quite arrogant, particularly Lord MacDonald, with a "this is how we've always done things attitude"
I'd be interested to know if they think the system is working better now. Clearly, Rishi is probably more to the Civil Service's liking but the Government is failing to deliver on his pledges.
I'm of the view that actually the system did actually need a really good shake up but the tragedy is that Boris and Truss weren't able to manage it due to personal failings (lack of seriousness and organisation from Boris, lack of communication skills from Truss).
And so now we will go back to insiders who will fail, but fail in an acceptable manner.
Much of Cummings critique of the civil service was and remains valid. The lack of understanding of statistics, maths and analytical skills, the pompous and pointless emphasis on precedent, hallowed procedures and the lack of technical skills for anything complicated. Unfortunately, and as per usual, his solutions did not work through to meaningful improvements. It was an opportunity to improve governance in this country but neither Cummings nor Boris had the stamina for it.
A favourite was being told by a high flyer in the Cabinet Office that IT projects had to be done with waterfall methodology. Anything else was anathema. He even used the word “incompetent”.
The high flyer in question had no training in (or understanding of) IT project management.
Amazing. This would be the development methodology first described in detail by Winston Royce who said in his paper on software development methodology:
”I believe in this concept, but the implementation described above (i.e. Waterfall) is risky and invites failure.”
& goes on to describe an iterative design methodology where system design, implementation & testing are run in a tight loop, each iterating on the other that sounds an awful lot like the best bits of “Agile” methodologies.
In other words, pure waterfall has been known to be a terrible approach right from the outset & was described not as a valid method, but as an example of what not to do as it “invited failure”. Unfortunately for the author he apparently wasn’t loud enough in his condemnation & generations of managers have looked at the pretty waterfall pictures & gone away convinced that they know everything about software development ever since.
See Royce, Winston (1970), "Managing the Development of Large Software Systems" (PDF), Proceedings of IEEE WESCON, 26 (August): 1–9 for the gory details. PDF here: https://www.praxisframework.org/files/royce1970.pdf
The best line, and I've long forgotten which book/paper it came from, was that every project should be documented *as if* it had followed waterfall.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
Today is the start of the 3-day hearing of the Scottish government's petition against the UK government's S.35 Order preventing the GRR Bill from getting Royal Assent.
All the relevant submissions can be read online. I am looking forward to it for a number of reasons:-
1. The legal arguments are interesting and I don't think it is necessarily obvious which way the court will rule.
2. There will be acres of misinformed commentary to enjoy and, on occasion, rebut.
3. A ruling is unlikely to happen quickly - and will therefore happen in the months leading up to a General Election. Whatever the decision it will likely be appealed and so we will have a legal cat among the electoral pigeons. This may well have consequences for the SNP/Labour battle in Scotland and, possibly, more widely.
Additionally in October there is the hearing of the appeal by For Women Scotland against the decision by Lady Haldane on the meaning of "sex" in the Equality Act. (Lady Haldane is also hearing the S.35 petition.) While that appeal related to Scottish legislation on the representation of women on public boards, it does potentially have wider implications. If "sex" does not include "legal sex" following a GRC but only biological sex, then who cares if every Tom, Dick (sorry!) or Harry can get a GRC because it will give them no rights to access single sex spaces, services or association. In short, a win for FWS may undermine the reasons for the S.35 Order.
Of course the Scottish government is arguing the opposite - that it does extend the definition and that this does not undermine the Equality Act. So you can see the fun lawyers will have.
Honestly, I can sense your excitement from here!
Good old Scotland - providing us with such treats!
Thanks - this one will be fascinating. I have some objections to the GRR legislation. But I also have objections to Westminster simply choosing to overrule stuff it has decided to disagree with for tactical partisan reasons.
But no criticism of the Scottish government repeatedly pushing things they know are outside their remit for political gain?
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
'This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools'
And to be fair you have identified the main issue in this controversial subject
Schools and other congested areas have had 20mph restrictions long before this legislation and nobody is suggesting they are changed
On the speed limits, there's two A-roads that cris-cross my village. I think these should be 30. The remaining roads, including the one none cul-de-sac that potentially skips the lights with the intersection should be 20.
Hopefully common sense applies when these speed limit changes are made and that some 30s become 20s (urban, through villages, etc), but others where there is a lot less risk stay at 30. I can think of roads where I am surprised it is 30 and not 40 often with no sign, but designated by the frequency of street lights. Some of these dropping to 20 would be silly if the road is safe and there is little or no pedestrian activity.
The Westway - raised dual carriageway with no pedestrian access - is 20mph (down from 40) thanks to Mayor Khan.
The difficult part is that a consensual sexual relationship between a 30yo and 16yo is not a crime as long as there is no position of authority involved. However, if a 16yo boy has sex with a 15yo girl though that is a crime but really should it be?
I think we need to change the law around the age of consent to take comparative ages into consideration. For example, maybe something based on the age of the youngest participant in a sexual activity: - If 14yo, other participant(s) maximum age is 16yo - If 15yo, other participant(s) maximum age is 18yo - If 16yo, other participant(s) maximum age is 20yo - If 17yo, other participant(s) maximum age is 25yo - At 18yo then no restriction on maximum age
This would make a 30yo having a relationship with a 16yo a crime but allow those 15yo/16yo relationships. A far more sensible solution in my view.
No. Things like this are attempts to make something complex which should not be. Pick an age (each country will have its own definitions). If under that age, illegal. If over that age, legal.
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I think it’s more concerning that, say, Elon Musk is backing Brand now, after these (credible) allegations came out, than that the Guardian did many years ago, before these allegations came out.
I think those are weasel words. The Graun employed him because he was edgy. Allegations followed but no one didn't know the type of person Brand was and that is precisely why they employed him.
Edit: and who cares who Musk backs. He doesn't get to determine right or wrong any more than the chairman of Three mobile network does.
A large number of companies have employed Brand over the years, some for longer and paying more money than The Guardian. I hope all of them are reflecting on what happened.
Why are you picking out The Guardian in particular? Were they particularly likely to know more about allegations? Do you know they failed to act on a complaint they received? Or is it you just don't like The Guardian?
I just don't like the Guardian.
And there's the truth. When things like this story blow up, a remarkable number of otherwise intelligent* people try to use it to crowbar their own ideology into it. Sometimes it's pushing at an open door. Sometimes it requires the kind of contortions you only see when the lead character in a Christmas movie is crawling through ducts.
If you're looking to a celebrity rape scandal to prove your politics is better than your opponents', you are onto a hiding to nothing. And it's really fucking boring.
*In general. I do not mean to imply that @TOPPING is otherwise intelligent
You're overthinking it, such as you are able to. The Guardian sets itself up as arbiter of values and "right" thinking. Then it proves that it has clay feet as do all of us (me excepted). Same with criticising Cambridge Analytica when if you read their "cookie" policy it does all that they criticised CA for doing or helping to do.
That is why I dislike it - on account of the sheer hypocrisy and, reading so many articles in today's edition, many of their columnists agree with me.
It is interesting from the map that the highest number of signatures are from the labour dominated areas of North and South Wales
Thanks for the updates on this but in addition to the punter dissatisfaction regarding this issue to what extent are opposition parties in Wales on the attack?
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
A pedant writes: it could be a Hawthorne effect (where being studied makes a difference). There were no placebos here. Frankly, it sounds like random variation. More research is needed. Please send grant money to...
"There couldn't be a placebo effect because the study didn't include a placebo."
Oh God.
As a general point, although clinical trials with a placebo are rightly seen as a gold standard, there are a lot of trials that don't have one due to the ethical issues.
Principally there can be circumstances, particularly where alternative courses of treatment exist, where it isn't just a white lie to give a placebo but you're denying them the alternative course of treatment as part of the deception.
I don't know if that's the case here, and haven't looked into the detail, but lack of a placebo doesn't somehow automatically invalidate a trial.
Indeed. Most trials today are done against best current practice rather than against a placebo.
In this case, there was only one group, who were assessed before and after. There was no comparison group.
That’s a UK/European approach. FDA still likes placebo
And Liz Truss has the right to feel slightly aggrieved ? ... “Johnson and his top adviser, Dominic Cummings, came up with an eye-catching suggestion: why not just NOT do an OBR forecast? The idea was voiced by the PM himself in one of the last meetings to discuss the package. ‘Can’t we just not bother with the OBR?’ Johnson asked Javid,” Riley-Smith wrote...
We need forecasts. You need a best guess as to how much cash you have before making decisions. The Tories set up the "independent" (as they always prefaced it) OBR to give a non-partisan set of numbers. That worked for them as a stick to bash Labour with. Less so when the OBR came out with numbers it dislikes.
Truss refused to get the OBR to do a forecast because she knows its assessment of her plan would be "this is fucking mental". If Boris! also proposed the same bypass of the independent OBR it was for the same reason. That Boris! proposed doing it does not excuse or somehow vindicate Truss for actually doing it.
No, what it shows is that the so-called Conservative Party can't be trusted with the nation's finances.
To the extent concerns that OBR models might not reflect the value of increased investment (Labour) or decreased taxes (Conservative) are valid, the answer is to have the OBR (and BoE and Uncle Tom Scholar and all) create new models, not announce to the world and its markets that you are bypassing all the normal safeguards because you know they will show your plans will bankrupt the nation in 3, 2, 1.
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I have almost no interest in Brand. The media circus is IMHO significantly driven by the fact that he was succeeding outside of their realm - a threat. So of course there will be a pile on.
Marina Hyde is unusually and admirably self-critical about it:
It's also a thoughtful piece about the treatment of Georgina Baillie
Agreed, it is very disturbing reading about what happened to her. Not a crime but something that clearly caused a lot of trauma and hurt for many years.
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
It seems foolish for this woman to comment on Brand’s work. If it’s that obvious to her that he would build up a fan base that would defend him, why didn’t she come forward before he’d done that?
I think Brand is a moron, but that shouldn’t come into this. Very simply, tell the police what happened and let them investigate. Leave everything else at the door.
Something of a double standard going on here.
If Brand continues to publicly rubbish those who've made allegations against him, should we expect them to remain silent ?
I'm just thinking what his defence team will say in court. They will ask them about these comments and suggest that it is politically motivated.
From Brand's point of view, I'd recommend he denies and then keeps his gob shut.
And the same goes for everyone else. The bloke on Sky News saying something like "innocent until proven guilty only applies to the state, the court of public opinion doesn't have to follow those rules" is very foolish.
Brand has produced plenty of material where he judges people as “guilty” for barely any reason at all.
The idea that “innocent until proven guilty means shut up until after someone brings a court case and there’s a verdict” is just a stupid attempt at shutting down debate. Usually used by guilty people.
Benjamin Mendy and Alex Salmond have entered the conversation.
I don't think saying "Brand behaves badly, therefore, people should be allowed to behave in the same way towards him" is a very good argument to be honest.
It doesn't reflect well on Boris, but it also doesn't reflect well on the Civil Service either. Many of those interviewed came across as quite arrogant, particularly Lord MacDonald, with a "this is how we've always done things attitude"
I'd be interested to know if they think the system is working better now. Clearly, Rishi is probably more to the Civil Service's liking but the Government is failing to deliver on his pledges.
I'm of the view that actually the system did actually need a really good shake up but the tragedy is that Boris and Truss weren't able to manage it due to personal failings (lack of seriousness and organisation from Boris, lack of communication skills from Truss).
And so now we will go back to insiders who will fail, but fail in an acceptable manner.
Much of Cummings critique of the civil service was and remains valid. The lack of understanding of statistics, maths and analytical skills, the pompous and pointless emphasis on precedent, hallowed procedures and the lack of technical skills for anything complicated. Unfortunately, and as per usual, his solutions did not work through to meaningful improvements. It was an opportunity to improve governance in this country but neither Cummings nor Boris had the stamina for it.
A favourite was being told by a high flyer in the Cabinet Office that IT projects had to be done with waterfall methodology. Anything else was anathema. He even used the word “incompetent”.
The high flyer in question had no training in (or understanding of) IT project management.
It could have been worse, he could have insisted that all projects were "Agile". "Minimum viable product" is a contender with "replacement bus service" as the most disappointing 3-word phrase in the English language.
I find it entertaining how far you can twist and misuse an idea.
It is interesting from the map that the highest number of signatures are from the labour dominated areas of North and South Wales
Thanks for the updates on this but in addition to the punter dissatisfaction regarding this issue to what extent are opposition parties in Wales on the attack?
Labour and Plaid have an agreed compromise, Welsh conservatives oppose, but I do not know the Lib Dem policy as they are virtually anonymous in Wales
I think those in England should follow this controversy as it could be coming to England via Starmer
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I think it’s more concerning that, say, Elon Musk is backing Brand now, after these (credible) allegations came out, than that the Guardian did many years ago, before these allegations came out.
I think those are weasel words. The Graun employed him because he was edgy. Allegations followed but no one didn't know the type of person Brand was and that is precisely why they employed him.
Edit: and who cares who Musk backs. He doesn't get to determine right or wrong any more than the chairman of Three mobile network does.
A large number of companies have employed Brand over the years, some for longer and paying more money than The Guardian. I hope all of them are reflecting on what happened.
Why are you picking out The Guardian in particular? Were they particularly likely to know more about allegations? Do you know they failed to act on a complaint they received? Or is it you just don't like The Guardian?
I just don't like the Guardian.
And there's the truth. When things like this story blow up, a remarkable number of otherwise intelligent* people try to use it to crowbar their own ideology into it. Sometimes it's pushing at an open door. Sometimes it requires the kind of contortions you only see when the lead character in a Christmas movie is crawling through ducts.
If you're looking to a celebrity rape scandal to prove your politics is better than your opponents', you are onto a hiding to nothing. And it's really fucking boring.
*In general. I do not mean to imply that @TOPPING is otherwise intelligent
You're overthinking it, such as you are able to. The Guardian sets itself up as arbiter of values and "right" thinking. Then it proves that it has clay feet as do all of us (me excepted). Same with criticising Cambridge Analytica when if you read their "cookie" policy it does all that they criticised CA for doing or helping to do.
That is why I dislike it - on account of the sheer hypocrisy and, reading so many articles in today's edition, many of their columnists agree with me.
Why are you reading so many articles in a newspaper you dislike?
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I think it’s more concerning that, say, Elon Musk is backing Brand now, after these (credible) allegations came out, than that the Guardian did many years ago, before these allegations came out.
I think those are weasel words. The Graun employed him because he was edgy. Allegations followed but no one didn't know the type of person Brand was and that is precisely why they employed him.
Edit: and who cares who Musk backs. He doesn't get to determine right or wrong any more than the chairman of Three mobile network does.
A large number of companies have employed Brand over the years, some for longer and paying more money than The Guardian. I hope all of them are reflecting on what happened.
Why are you picking out The Guardian in particular? Were they particularly likely to know more about allegations? Do you know they failed to act on a complaint they received? Or is it you just don't like The Guardian?
I just don't like the Guardian.
And there's the truth. When things like this story blow up, a remarkable number of otherwise intelligent* people try to use it to crowbar their own ideology into it. Sometimes it's pushing at an open door. Sometimes it requires the kind of contortions you only see when the lead character in a Christmas movie is crawling through ducts.
If you're looking to a celebrity rape scandal to prove your politics is better than your opponents', you are onto a hiding to nothing. And it's really fucking boring.
*In general. I do not mean to imply that @TOPPING is otherwise intelligent
You're overthinking it, such as you are able to. The Guardian sets itself up as arbiter of values and "right" thinking. Then it proves that it has clay feet as do all of us (me excepted). Same with criticising Cambridge Analytica when if you read their "cookie" policy it does all that they criticised CA for doing or helping to do.
That is why I dislike it - on account of the sheer hypocrisy and, reading so many articles in today's edition, many of their columnists agree with me.
Why are you reading so many articles in a newspaper you dislike?
Your kidding, right? What fun would it be only to read articles from Railway Modeller. Or does it surprise you that people, not you obvs, read other points of view.
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I think it’s more concerning that, say, Elon Musk is backing Brand now, after these (credible) allegations came out, than that the Guardian did many years ago, before these allegations came out.
I think those are weasel words. The Graun employed him because he was edgy. Allegations followed but no one didn't know the type of person Brand was and that is precisely why they employed him.
Edit: and who cares who Musk backs. He doesn't get to determine right or wrong any more than the chairman of Three mobile network does.
A large number of companies have employed Brand over the years, some for longer and paying more money than The Guardian. I hope all of them are reflecting on what happened.
Why are you picking out The Guardian in particular? Were they particularly likely to know more about allegations? Do you know they failed to act on a complaint they received? Or is it you just don't like The Guardian?
I just don't like the Guardian.
And there's the truth. When things like this story blow up, a remarkable number of otherwise intelligent* people try to use it to crowbar their own ideology into it. Sometimes it's pushing at an open door. Sometimes it requires the kind of contortions you only see when the lead character in a Christmas movie is crawling through ducts.
If you're looking to a celebrity rape scandal to prove your politics is better than your opponents', you are onto a hiding to nothing. And it's really fucking boring.
*In general. I do not mean to imply that @TOPPING is otherwise intelligent
You're overthinking it, such as you are able to. The Guardian sets itself up as arbiter of values and "right" thinking. Then it proves that it has clay feet as do all of us (me excepted). Same with criticising Cambridge Analytica when if you read their "cookie" policy it does all that they criticised CA for doing or helping to do.
That is why I dislike it - on account of the sheer hypocrisy and, reading so many articles in today's edition, many of their columnists agree with me.
Why are you reading so many articles in a newspaper you dislike?
Interesting attack. Isn’t it better to read newspapers we disagree with, in order to be better read/broaden our minds?
If we are going to criticise something, shouldn’t we have read it first? If Topping was criticising The Guardian, then saying he never read it, that would surely be worse?
The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.
This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.
If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.
More experiments, less dogma!
Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
A pedant writes: it could be a Hawthorne effect (where being studied makes a difference). There were no placebos here. Frankly, it sounds like random variation. More research is needed. Please send grant money to...
"There couldn't be a placebo effect because the study didn't include a placebo."
Oh God.
As a general point, although clinical trials with a placebo are rightly seen as a gold standard, there are a lot of trials that don't have one due to the ethical issues.
Principally there can be circumstances, particularly where alternative courses of treatment exist, where it isn't just a white lie to give a placebo but you're denying them the alternative course of treatment as part of the deception.
I don't know if that's the case here, and haven't looked into the detail, but lack of a placebo doesn't somehow automatically invalidate a trial.
Indeed. Most trials today are done against best current practice rather than against a placebo.
In this case, there was only one group, who were assessed before and after. There was no comparison group.
That’s a UK/European approach. FDA still likes placebo
That's a simplification. But it is true that European regulators are more concerned about comparisons with best available practice. That's because the UK/Europe are interested in making people healthier and the US is interested in drug companies making money. Someone posted this video here the other day that is relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtHMB3vroas
It is interesting from the map that the highest number of signatures are from the labour dominated areas of North and South Wales
Thanks for the updates on this but in addition to the punter dissatisfaction regarding this issue to what extent are opposition parties in Wales on the attack?
Labour and Plaid have an agreed compromise, Welsh conservatives oppose, but I do not know the Lib Dem policy as they are virtually anonymous in Wales
I think those in England should follow this controversy as it could be coming to England via Starmer
The petition is correlated with people in Wales who identified as "English" in the census, so you could well be right.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
It seems foolish for this woman to comment on Brand’s work. If it’s that obvious to her that he would build up a fan base that would defend him, why didn’t she come forward before he’d done that?
I think Brand is a moron, but that shouldn’t come into this. Very simply, tell the police what happened and let them investigate. Leave everything else at the door.
Something of a double standard going on here.
If Brand continues to publicly rubbish those who've made allegations against him, should we expect them to remain silent ?
I'm just thinking what his defence team will say in court. They will ask them about these comments and suggest that it is politically motivated.
From Brand's point of view, I'd recommend he denies and then keeps his gob shut.
And the same goes for everyone else. The bloke on Sky News saying something like "innocent until proven guilty only applies to the state, the court of public opinion doesn't have to follow those rules" is very foolish.
Brand has produced plenty of material where he judges people as “guilty” for barely any reason at all.
The idea that “innocent until proven guilty means shut up until after someone brings a court case and there’s a verdict” is just a stupid attempt at shutting down debate. Usually used by guilty people.
Benjamin Mendy and Alex Salmond have entered the conversation.
I don't think saying "Brand behaves badly, therefore, people should be allowed to behave in the same way towards him" is a very good argument to be honest.
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
Well, for a start
1) She should be meek and tearful. Confidence in women is a sign they are getting above themselves. 2) Dress modestly - perhaps a nice headscarf. A veil? 3) Accuse the right people 4) Not accuse people in public. Perhaps in a Catholic Church confessional, given the excellent track record of that institution for handling sexual scandals. 5) Not get uppity by demanding punishment.
There appear to be a lot of people who dislike Brand and dislike the fact that plenty of people like him.
What I do think it's funny is the Guardian. Employs him no doubt after a largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it make the paper "relevant", or at least give people a break from George Monbiot, and now it's come back to kick them in the arse.
They are precisely a part of the problem. And it's very funny seeing them tie themselves in knots about it now.
I think it’s more concerning that, say, Elon Musk is backing Brand now, after these (credible) allegations came out, than that the Guardian did many years ago, before these allegations came out.
I think those are weasel words. The Graun employed him because he was edgy. Allegations followed but no one didn't know the type of person Brand was and that is precisely why they employed him.
Edit: and who cares who Musk backs. He doesn't get to determine right or wrong any more than the chairman of Three mobile network does.
A large number of companies have employed Brand over the years, some for longer and paying more money than The Guardian. I hope all of them are reflecting on what happened.
Why are you picking out The Guardian in particular? Were they particularly likely to know more about allegations? Do you know they failed to act on a complaint they received? Or is it you just don't like The Guardian?
I just don't like the Guardian.
And there's the truth. When things like this story blow up, a remarkable number of otherwise intelligent* people try to use it to crowbar their own ideology into it. Sometimes it's pushing at an open door. Sometimes it requires the kind of contortions you only see when the lead character in a Christmas movie is crawling through ducts.
If you're looking to a celebrity rape scandal to prove your politics is better than your opponents', you are onto a hiding to nothing. And it's really fucking boring.
*In general. I do not mean to imply that @TOPPING is otherwise intelligent
You're overthinking it, such as you are able to. The Guardian sets itself up as arbiter of values and "right" thinking. Then it proves that it has clay feet as do all of us (me excepted). Same with criticising Cambridge Analytica when if you read their "cookie" policy it does all that they criticised CA for doing or helping to do.
That is why I dislike it - on account of the sheer hypocrisy and, reading so many articles in today's edition, many of their columnists agree with me.
Every paper with an ideological stance sets itself up as the arbiter of values and "right" thinking. And they all fall into stupidity and hypocrisy some of the time. The Guardian is no different to the Mail or the Sun or the Indy or the Telegraph or the Mirror in that respect.
Different ideologies lead to different hypocrisies. You single out the Guardian because of your ideology.
And the sun rises in the East. Did I say I love all newspapers apart from the Guardian. I believe by 16yrs, coincidentally enough, one ought to be able to read newspapers critically. Perhaps a bit older for you, who knows.
I focus on the Guardian because it amuses me so. There was, in CiF some time ago, a recurrent post which was put up, perhaps you recall it, where the schools and universities of all the editorial staff and columnists was shown. It was hysterically funny (to me). All public school, the vast majority Oxbridge educated. The post would soon be taken down by the moderators. Is this intrinsically funny when they (as with others) set themselves up as arbiters of correct values and a "come all ye", diverse kind of place? Yes. Yes it is.
It is interesting from the map that the highest number of signatures are from the labour dominated areas of North and South Wales
Thanks for the updates on this but in addition to the punter dissatisfaction regarding this issue to what extent are opposition parties in Wales on the attack?
Labour and Plaid have an agreed compromise, Welsh conservatives oppose, but I do not know the Lib Dem policy as they are virtually anonymous in Wales
I think those in England should follow this controversy as it could be coming to England via Starmer
Welsh Conservatives are objecting the loudest - as they object to everything - without offering any meaningful alternative
Plaid are coming through this as the voice of reason but dont know how much they will capitalise on this due to their low profile.
Lib Dems are nowhere to be heard - same as the shouty right .
Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.
“He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.
“And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..
Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
I think if someone is making a serious allegation, especially after a long time has elapsed, they are well advised to keep their media commentary on the alleged perpetrator to a minimum, to avoid being seen to be grinding an ideological axe. I'm not a legal eagle, but I am surprised this lady wasn't given advice along these lines by her solicitor, as it seems basic to me.
I'm not a fan of 'disclaimers' of the 'I don't like Putin' type, as I find them rather infantile, but I'll do so here. I am not a fan of Brand; I never was. I have always found him fairly gross, and I have never seen any episodes of his Youtube, or found anything he has to say very insightful. I knew he was a pig with women, which is an extremely offputting facet of his personality. I did see an interview with him on US telly where I thought he was very funny, it was Letterman, who usually tries to be wittier than his guests, which he couldn't do with Brand in this instance.
That all said, I am suspicious of the more serious historic allegations, and the above accuser's interview on Women's Hour doesn't serve to reassure me. These are serious crimes, and should be treated as such, not as a jumping off point for a broad career critique.
Interesting article about a reanalysis of Tavistock data that had originally shown no impact on mental health for children on puberty blockers. New analysis says a 34% had deteriorated and 25% had improved.
What strikes me as odd is that "the original study used scores from both parent and child questionnaires, which assessed children's behavioural and emotional problems" ... if it's based on self reported data then all else equal couldn't an improvement be possibly expected even from simply a placebo effect?
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
A pedant writes: it could be a Hawthorne effect (where being studied makes a difference). There were no placebos here. Frankly, it sounds like random variation. More research is needed. Please send grant money to...
As others have pointed out. A placebo effect can occur in any non-effective treatment. The point of having a control (maybe a placebo) in a trial is to measure if any observed effect is due to the treatment or not. If the trialled treatment has no effect, but some advantage is observed this may or may not might be placebo, may or may not be Hawthorne or might be just random variation.
My main point is that a Hawthorne effect is part placebo effect. What's the dfference? The Hawthorne effect is the placebo effect when it is the patient reacting to being given placebo. One reason for a positive effect that is non-placebo but is Hawthorne effect is due to all round better medical care. Patients on a randomised trials are followed-up much more closely than non-trial patients and so other complications might be picked up quickly.
A "famous" statistician/clinical trial specialist once told me: if you get the chance to be on a clinical phase III trial, you should definitely agree to it. Even if you are on the control group your alround level of treatment and care will be much better than when not on the trial.
Comments
offer them the opportunity to watch an educational video rather than face a fine of prosecution.
Given it's the fire service who hose the blood off the road after a collision, I can understand why they are getting involved.
It was also the fire service who scared the shit out of me when I was 17, touring Scotland's rural secondary schools to explain what happens when you hit a tree at 60mph.
Rather serious story about India being alleged to have links to the murder of a prominent campaigner for a Sikh state: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66848041
Woman behind the counter - late middle aged, mumsy, strong London accent. Makes me coffee. The radio in the background is playing a very French chanson. Emphasis on the “-e” at the end of each phrase. I get the coffee. Say “merci” forgetting where I am. She replies with a reflexive “de rien”.
There are many French ex pats in this area but I never thought cockney grandma at the station would be one of them. A little morning vignette, a flicker of who do you think you are. I wonder what her story is.
It’s more intriguing still when you get these sorts of encounters in an out of the way corner of the country. Like the Italian mamma of Pontypandy in Fireman Sam. I often wonder when I pass a village Chinese takeaway in a remote part of Powys or a Tandoori restaurant on the Isle of Man.
So, respectfully, the fire service will not be enforcing anything. They have no legal power to enforce anything. Any firefighter who gets ideas above their station and starts thinking they are Dirty Harry will get a stiff talking to from wiser heads.
"Minimum viable product" is a contender with "replacement bus service" as the most disappointing 3-word phrase in the English language.
He is anti-mainstream / anti-woke / anti-establishment / anti-rules depending on your perspective. So must either be defended or attacked at all costs depending where you sit on those cultural divide issues.
Remember the film Network? Russell Brand is what the news anchor back then would be today. "Get your I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not going to Take It Anymore" merch on my Patreon" etc
And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?
But it might seem unfunny now...
If I were in the business of trying to point to other factors that have a causal link to deterioration in self reported mental health that haven't been assessed I would also look at the general state of the healthcare for trans youth, the treatment of trans youth by their peers, acceptance by the parents of the treatment - and so on. This data set is from 2011-2014, where much of the attacks on trans people were not played out in the media and most people had a low level prejudice against trans people, so the weight given to social factors would be interesting to determine.
It seems to be an outlier from all existing research, so it would be useful to have more research on this topic going deeper - but it doesn't seem to be particularly strong evidence for puberty blockers actively harming trans youth.
EDIT - Police Scotland do not enforce speed limits, at least not up here in the NE. If someone was doing lunatic speed and caused a crash I'm sure they would get the book thrown at them.
Otherwise? Make progress. Car cruising speeds hit 70mph (on open single carriageways) quite easily, trucks drive at the 56mph limiter, nobody cares as long as the driving is sensible. Which it largely is. But through my village? We have speed display signs at either end, and people tend to park in a way which naturally enforces 30mph. Would be happier if it was 20mph though.
Or are they fessing up to have made some serious errors of judgment ?
From the way both the Guardian and BBC have reported this, the latter seems slightly more likely.
A group of Welsh lorry drivers also apologised in advance as they vowed to trundle along at 19mph in opposition to the plans.
Talk about threatening with a good time.
It could be a placebo effect because of the design (before/after study) rather than because it's self-reported data.
In many cases the 20mph zones are justified and have been in place around schools and congested roads for a long time
Where the controversy is causing anger is here in Wales where a statutory reduction in all 30mph area to 20mph has been applied with some leeway for councils to amend back to 30mph
It appears, certainly here in North Wales, to have had fewer exemptions and the petition, which now exceeds over 135,000 signatures, will require the Senedd to address the issue with the likely outcome that local authorities will review more of the restrictions and indeed the Welsh Government to provide an assessment of the progress of the scheme after 6 months
It will be interesting to see if Starmer is prepared to follow Welsh labour with a similar change for England
Why are you picking out The Guardian in particular? Were they particularly likely to know more about allegations? Do you know they failed to act on a complaint they received? Or is it you just don't like The Guardian?
Today is the start of the 3-day hearing of the Scottish government's petition against the UK government's S.35 Order preventing the GRR Bill from getting Royal Assent.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/supreme-courts/about-the-court-of-session/court-of-session-livestream-hearings
All the relevant submissions can be read online. I am looking forward to it for a number of reasons:-
1. The legal arguments are interesting and I don't think it is necessarily obvious which way the court will rule.
2. There will be acres of misinformed commentary to enjoy and, on occasion, rebut.
3. A ruling is unlikely to happen quickly - and will therefore happen in the months leading up to a General Election. Whatever the decision it will likely be appealed and so we will have a legal cat among the electoral pigeons. This may well have consequences for the SNP/Labour battle in Scotland and, possibly, more widely.
Additionally in October there is the hearing of the appeal by For Women Scotland against the decision by Lady Haldane on the meaning of "sex" in the Equality Act. (Lady Haldane is also hearing the S.35 petition.) While that appeal related to Scottish legislation on the representation of women on public boards, it does potentially have wider implications. If "sex" does not include "legal sex" following a GRC but only biological sex, then who cares if every Tom, Dick (sorry!) or Harry can get a GRC because it will give them no rights to access single sex spaces, services or association. In short, a win for FWS may undermine the reasons for the S.35 Order.
Of course the Scottish government is arguing the opposite - that it does extend the definition and that this does not undermine the Equality Act. So you can see the fun lawyers will have.
Honestly, I can sense your excitement from here!
Good old Scotland - providing us with such treats!
When mental health is the outcome of interest, as here, self-reported data is usually used in regulatory decisions, because someone's mental health is something that can only be self-reported. You can't measure someone's depression well without talking to them.
The remaining roads, including the one none cul-de-sac that potentially skips the lights with the intersection should be 20.
https://x.com/MarinaHyde/status/1704013159311270060?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7v9BDcx3-0w
Oh God.
There's another study onoging that is using representative(ish) population data, but that has it's own limitations around data recording. A further study using similar data to the Tavistock study but with a larger and more representative sample and more followup is also going through approvals (ethics etc). Both those linked to the Cass review.
bondegezou has answered the epidemiology questions on this - nothing wrong with self report (there isn't another way for this, really) with validated scales, but before/after has limitations as does the lack of a control group (but even then, unless randomising, the group that didn't get blockers would probably differ in ways that were not easily measurable/controllable for anyway).
What's interesting is that the original study didn't show the benefits of the Dutch study, which itself had a number of issues and this reanalysis makes an important point about an overall mean no effect not meaning that it has no effect for anyone or even most people.
All research is a pragmatic compromise between the ideals (random sampling, study design, follow-up etc.) and what is feasible given time, budget, ethical requirements, and so on.
Though he ought also to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
Boris Johnson called his allies ‘The Munsters’, new book alleges
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/19/boris-johnson-called-his-allies-the-munsters-new-book-alleges
...
“Johnson and his top adviser, Dominic Cummings, came up with an eye-catching suggestion: why not just NOT do an OBR forecast? The idea was voiced by the PM himself in one of the last meetings to discuss the package. ‘Can’t we just not bother with the OBR?’ Johnson asked Javid,” Riley-Smith wrote...
Principally there can be circumstances, particularly where alternative courses of treatment exist, where it isn't just a white lie to give a placebo but you're denying them the alternative course of treatment as part of the deception.
I don't know if that's the case here, and haven't looked into the detail, but lack of a placebo doesn't somehow automatically invalidate a trial.
In this case, there was only one group, who were assessed before and after. There was no comparison group.
Truss refused to get the OBR to do a forecast because she knows its assessment of her plan would be "this is fucking mental". If Boris! also proposed the same bypass of the independent OBR it was for the same reason. That Boris! proposed doing it does not excuse or somehow vindicate Truss for actually doing it.
No, what it shows is that the so-called Conservative Party can't be trusted with the nation's finances.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-victims-russell-brand-misogyny-deserve-full-support
I always thought it was something that’s not done but clearly incorrect.
Here's some old media footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2evjE_Y_cVc To quote the description:
"US presidential contender Barack Obama on Saturday lunchtime met leader of the British opposition Conservative Party, David Cameron, at the House of Commons, his last engagement in London before flying back to the US at the end of his European and Middle Eastern tour.
Obama had come from 10 Downing Street, where he had met British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Cameron took Obama onto College Green opposite the Houses of Parliament, before taking him back for a sit down chat in a sitting room in the House of Commons.
Earlier, Obama met British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at his official residence, 10 Downing Street, where the two held talks before coming out into the garden behind Number 10.
Pooled television images showed Brown offering Obama a chair on the terrace before the pair settled down for two hours of talks.
They later took a stroll in the sunshine around Horse Guards Parade, the vast open space where military reviews, such as Trooping the Colour, are held.
Tourists snapped pictures from a distance while security guards walked ahead of the two men.
The stroll in the vast arena offered a photo opportunity with a London backdrop for Obama, whose visit to Britain has been relatively low-key, particularly after the huge crowds he drew earlier in the week in Germany.
Speaking to reporters after wrapping up talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama said he had had a terrific conversation with Brown, which covered a wide range of topics including terrorism, climate change, and financial markets, as well as strengthening the trans-Atlantic relationship.
Earlier, he met former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is now a Middle East envoy. The meeting lasted for just over an hour.
Obama is winding up an election-season trip, financed by his campaign. Part of his goal for the trip through Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe has been to allow him to make his debut on the international stage, part of his campaign to show voters in the United States about his readiness for the presidency.
On Friday, he had a meeting for more than an hour with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace in Paris."
Her "For a certain type of mournfully uncool man on the left, Russell Brand was quite the excitement" matches my "largely white, Oxbridge-educated editorial board, none of whom I'd wager really knew who he was or what he said, thinking it would make the paper "relevant"".
”I believe in this concept, but the implementation described above (i.e. Waterfall) is risky and invites failure.”
& goes on to describe an iterative design methodology where system design, implementation & testing are run in a tight loop, each iterating on the other that sounds an awful lot like the best bits of “Agile” methodologies.
In other words, pure waterfall has been known to be a terrible approach right from the outset & was described not as a valid method, but as an example of what not to do as it “invited failure”. Unfortunately for the author he apparently wasn’t loud enough in his condemnation & generations of managers have looked at the pretty waterfall pictures & gone away convinced that they know everything about software development ever since.
See Royce, Winston (1970), "Managing the Development of Large Software Systems" (PDF), Proceedings of IEEE WESCON, 26 (August): 1–9 for the gory details. PDF here: https://www.praxisframework.org/files/royce1970.pdf
https://petitions.senedd.wales/petitions/245548
Now at over 140,000
It is interesting from the map that the highest number of signatures are from the labour dominated areas of North and South Wales
Why the fuck shouldn't she have an essay up her sleeve about him? Why shouldn't she have opinions? And share them?
We're meant to endure, are we, a man forcing his penis down our throat against our wishes so that we have to punch them in the stomach to get free? And then we're meant to be silent? And not talk about what has happened to us years later? Even though the scrote who's done this to us is paid handsomely to discuss intimate details about his life and publicly humiliate women for entertainment.
Oh do fuck off.
There will also be plenty of lower level meetings - I imagine Reeves will have met her counterparts in Washington and Berlin for example. Clearly, with a US election due close to our election, that adds an element of uncertainty to all this.
While a new Government may represent change, there also has to be an element of continuity.
The "Gold Standard" is a double blind case-control randomised trial. The control should be the best currently available and proven treatment.
If you do a trial with PillB against placebo, when PillA is already known to give reasonable results, then you have a problem when you show that PillB is statistically significantly better than placebo. You have no idea if PillB is better than PillA.
People who deliberately present as attention seeking bullies very often prove to be exactly that.
Patient diaries are useful but mainly used for secondary endpoints because of inherent variability
I think it shows a marked paucity of insight to blame the Tory membership for electing either IDS or Truss, given that the PCP only gave them an alternative choice of Ken Clarke or Rishi Sunak, leaving Portillo on the bench back then, and Penny more recently. Not forgetting that it was Sunak and his loathsome Gavin Williamson orchestrated campaign that engineered him into a head to head with Truss, which he was still too shit to win.
This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.
As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.
It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.
A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.
The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.
Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
And to be fair you have identified the main issue in this controversial subject
Schools and other congested areas have had 20mph restrictions long before this legislation and nobody is suggesting they are changed
It’s ludicrous.
That is why I dislike it - on account of the sheer hypocrisy and, reading so many articles in today's edition, many of their columnists agree with me.
In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc
This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
I think those in England should follow this controversy as it could be coming to England via Starmer
If we are going to criticise something, shouldn’t we have read it first? If Topping was criticising The Guardian, then saying he never read it, that would surely be worse?
My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial. Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example
As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
1) She should be meek and tearful. Confidence in women is a sign they are getting above themselves.
2) Dress modestly - perhaps a nice headscarf. A veil?
3) Accuse the right people
4) Not accuse people in public. Perhaps in a Catholic Church confessional, given the excellent track record of that institution for handling sexual scandals.
5) Not get uppity by demanding punishment.
Have I missed anything?
I focus on the Guardian because it amuses me so. There was, in CiF some time ago, a recurrent post which was put up, perhaps you recall it, where the schools and universities of all the editorial staff and columnists was shown. It was hysterically funny (to me). All public school, the vast majority Oxbridge educated. The post would soon be taken down by the moderators. Is this intrinsically funny when they (as with others) set themselves up as arbiters of correct values and a "come all ye", diverse kind of place? Yes. Yes it is.
Plaid are coming through this as the voice of reason but dont know how much they will capitalise on this due to their low profile.
Lib Dems are nowhere to be heard - same as the shouty right .
I'm not a fan of 'disclaimers' of the 'I don't like Putin' type, as I find them rather infantile, but I'll do so here. I am not a fan of Brand; I never was. I have always found him fairly gross, and I have never seen any episodes of his Youtube, or found anything he has to say very insightful. I knew he was a pig with women, which is an extremely offputting facet of his personality. I did see an interview with him on US telly where I thought he was very funny, it was Letterman, who usually tries to be wittier than his guests, which he couldn't do with Brand in this instance.
That all said, I am suspicious of the more serious historic allegations, and the above accuser's interview on Women's Hour doesn't serve to reassure me. These are serious crimes, and should be treated as such, not as a jumping off point for a broad career critique.
My main point is that a Hawthorne effect is part placebo effect. What's the dfference? The Hawthorne effect is the placebo effect when it is the patient reacting to being given placebo. One reason for a positive effect that is non-placebo but is Hawthorne effect is due to all round better medical care. Patients on a randomised trials are followed-up much more closely than non-trial patients and so other complications might be picked up quickly.
A "famous" statistician/clinical trial specialist once told me: if you get the chance to be on a clinical phase III trial, you should definitely agree to it. Even if you are on the control group your alround level of treatment and care will be much better than when not on the trial.