Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
In the desire not to "complicate the message" / fight back against antivax propaganda, a number of things were either downplayed, twisted or banned from discussion on social media. The problem is by not treating the public as adults it plays into the Wusselly Brand types whose narrative is the globalist governance always lies to you, grand conspiracy to keep you poor and in check.
I agree with that. Also - in general I have very little patience with anri-vaxxers, but I was a bit disappointed with the Covid vaccines. When they first came out there was talk of reaching herd immunity by getting everyone vaccinated. Maybe it took a while to become clear that was never on the cards as the vaccines don't do enough to stop people getting infected and then infecting others. But there was, I think, sometimes an exaggerated claim as to how important it was to get vaccinated *to protect others* by preventing yourself from spreading the virus. Of course I am super happy and grateful that vaccines became available so quickly - there's a good chance it saved my parents' lives. But how does it go? "success=reality minus expectations" expectations management should have been better from the start.
I’m not sure I agree. Sure, from the perspective of someone clued up and interested in current affairs and a bit more savvy on public health matters you might be quite accepting of a nuanced message e.g “these vaccines don’t solve all our problems but you should go get it anyway because it’s better to get it than not at all.” But the need at the time was to get as many people as possible vaccinated, and if you are inserting nuance you are inserting uncertainty, and more reasons why people don’t want to go and get one.
It’s a very difficult balancing act. Honesty in matters of healthcare is incredibly important, but also so is simplicity of messaging. A lot of literature written about health is deliberately kept simple and un-controversial for that reason. Dig deeply into any medical treatment or condition and you’ll find the picture is often less clear.
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Before multiculturalism we had anti-racism. As for Suella Braverman, she seems to be following GOP talking points, not least on tent cities. Was she at that recent conference?
A few of the Tory right have used language recently that belongs more to US culture wars than to British ones. I think they need to be careful there because they risk sounding a bit alien in the UK context. Kemi does it a bit and it sometimes jars. As well as basic terminology, the big focus on BLM is an example - much more of a large scale cultural phenomenon in the US and much more associated with violent disruption than here. If they start talking about Antifa it'll be another one. Goodwin has been talking about "patriots", which isn't a term Brits use much (they say patriotic but rarely refer to people as patriots). The left was also guilty of importing US culture war talking points around the time of the BLM protests - the context, of routinely lethal police violence towards black men, was a very American one.
To be fair the language around the "war on motorists" has been much more British in tone. If you're going to market right wing ideas then it needs to be done in language the electorate will engage with. They also still stick to terms like "lefty" rather than "liberal". If Braverman started talking about liberal judges rather than lefty lawyers it would evoke yellow-rosetted magistrates with laissez-faire attitudes to drug possession.
Either way I think Braverman is POSSIBLY worth a punt on 10/1 as next Tory leader
Badenoch feels lightweight Mordaunt has blown it and she’s Woke Cleverly doesn’t inspire Braverman is positioning herself smartly
Also Mordaunt will lose her seat so be ineligible. I think the odds are much shorter than that. Are there two other less crazy candidates who can both beat her in the MPs poll? If she goes to the members, she's in.
It's a point we keep forgetting: which of the likely leadership candidates will actually keep their seat.
Truss, Badenoch and Braverman are very safe, as is Cleverly - one of the safest seats of all. Mordaunt is at high risk in Portsmouth. JRM is also at risk in Somerset, but that would require a pretty big swing still.
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
We’re doing better than some, worse than others
But that’s not really the point. The whole philosophy underpinning multiculturalism is collapsing - you can see it everywhere. When that goes a whole lot of political norms and assumptions will topple over, with it
That will make space for unexpected events and people
The idea of big “M” multiculturalism (aka Separate Development) collapsed decades ago. Finished off by 7/7
Things like encouraging immigrants to learn English became official policy. Don’t you remember Yasmin Alibhai-Brown whining about being forced to… like!?!… the U.K.?
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, current crime rates in the those nations are lower than they have ever been, so we really aren't doing too badly when it comes to law and order. I think people tend to have a perception of worsening crime because they generally become more fearful of crime as they get older.
It's a bit like inflation. How often do you hear "how can crime be falling when my friend was mugged at knifepoint last week?". Same as "how can inflation be falling when things are still expensive?"
Either way I think Braverman is POSSIBLY worth a punt on 10/1 as next Tory leader
Badenoch feels lightweight Mordaunt has blown it and she’s Woke Cleverly doesn’t inspire Braverman is positioning herself smartly
Also Mordaunt will lose her seat so be ineligible. I think the odds are much shorter than that. Are there two other less crazy candidates who can both beat her in the MPs poll? If she goes to the members, she's in.
It's a point we keep forgetting: which of the likely leadership candidates will actually keep their seat.
Truss, Badenoch and Braverman are very safe, as is Cleverly - one of the safest seats of all. Mordaunt is at high risk in Portsmouth. JRM is also at risk in Somerset, but that would require a pretty big swing still.
I think Mordaunt hangs on unless it’s a cataclysm (which is plausible) because I expect her name recognition to give her a boost, together with her Great Swordmistress of The Realm image. But yes, Badenoch and Braverman have less questions marks given they are in really safe seats.
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
Are you suggesting that @Leon is exaggerating a doom story?
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, current crime rates in the those nations are lower than they have ever been, so we really aren't doing too badly when it comes to law and order. I think people tend to have a perception of worsening crime because they generally become more fearful of crime as they get older.
It's a bit like inflation. How often do you hear "how can crime be falling when my friend was mugged at knifepoint last week?". Same as "how can inflation be falling when things are still expensive?"
One of those examples is a first-order effect related to a personal experience, and the other is a second-order effect.
If crime is falling then there are fewer crimes, whereas if inflation is falling prices are still going up.
Of course, the same thing can be said for another trouble spit: Peace is impossible while Hamas denies Israel's right to exist...
I'm not sure Israel is completely sound on Hamas's right to exist after the 7th October outrages, which is where the parallel with Russia/Ukraine breaks down.
Indeed, there are many members of Israel's governing coalition who (publicly) believe in the River to the Sea, only for the State of Israel, rather than the State of Palestine.
Israel is a democracy, and in democracies people have all sorts of views.
Its not the stated or public view of Israel in general or most Israelis even if a few extremists hold that view.
Itamar Ben-Gvir is the leader of Jewish Power, and a member of the Israeli cabinet.
Yes, and we have Jacob Rees Mogg who's been a member of the British cabinet.
Democracies have a broad spectrum of elected politicians, Israel is no different. It is a democracy, democracies aren't supposed to only have a single view on subjects.
The overwhelming majority of Israelis vote for parties still at least theoretically in favour of a two state solution, as even Netanyahu and Likud still claim to be.
Though there's a world of difference between denying an existing state's right to exist (like Israel), and a potential theoretical future state's right to exist (like Palestine, Kurdistan etc).
Turkey deny Kurdistan's right to exist, is that outrageous of them?
Yes, it is outrageous of them. However, the Kurdish PKK is also regarded as a terrorist organisation in Turkey. Following the example of Israel, this presumably means you would regard Turkey as being justified in waging all-out war on the Kurds after the next PKK attack?
On the Kurds, no, on the PKK, yes of course.
Just as Israel is not launching an all out war on Palestinians, or even Gazans, Hamas launched a war on Israel and Israel are fighting back which they are perfectly entitled to do.
If some Gazans/Kurds get killed in the crossfire because Hamas/PKK use them as human shields then that's an unavoidable tragedy but perfectly legal and ethical in war. What is neither legal nor ethical is deliberately targeting civilians alone without targeting the enemy.
How many times does this need explaining before you can grasp the distinction?
Presumably you would agree that if the Israeli hostages get killed by the Israelis because Hamas are using them as human shields then that's an unavoidable tragedy but perfectly legal and ethical for the Israelis in war?
It may come to that because I can't see Hamas giving up their human shield hostages. The Israelis may have to sacrifice them by burning or gassing the tunnels to eliminate Hamas. 200 Israeli hostages and 10,000 innocent Palestinians, but all legal and ethical in war?
Some people here obviously believe that so long as the stated aim is "eliminating bad people" then anything done is by definition legal and right. Presumably up to and including the destruction of all life on earth. There's no point trying to discuss it with them. Sane people understand it is a question of proportionality (which is also where the law is) and where you draw the line.
Strawman and reductio ad absurdum - two logical fallacies in one!
Has this war made everyone on here forget how to argue properly?
Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy.
Sorry, you're right: I should probably have said begging the question, although I think "strawman" sums it up adequately without that.
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
In the desire not to "complicate the message" / fight back against antivax propaganda, a number of things were either downplayed, twisted or banned from discussion on social media. The problem is by not treating the public as adults it plays into the Wusselly Brand types whose narrative is the globalist governance always lies to you, grand conspiracy to keep you poor and in check.
I agree with that. Also - in general I have very little patience with anri-vaxxers, but I was a bit disappointed with the Covid vaccines. When they first came out there was talk of reaching herd immunity by getting everyone vaccinated. Maybe it took a while to become clear that was never on the cards as the vaccines don't do enough to stop people getting infected and then infecting others. But there was, I think, sometimes an exaggerated claim as to how important it was to get vaccinated *to protect others* by preventing yourself from spreading the virus. Of course I am super happy and grateful that vaccines became available so quickly - there's a good chance it saved my parents' lives. But how does it go? "success=reality minus expectations" expectations management should have been better from the start.
While the efficacy of the vaccines re transmission is lower, it makes a very noticeable difference to the rate of spread of the virus. R number and all that.
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
In the desire not to "complicate the message" / fight back against antivax propaganda, a number of things were either downplayed, twisted or banned from discussion on social media. The problem is by not treating the public as adults it plays into the Wusselly Brand types whose narrative is the globalist governance always lies to you, grand conspiracy to keep you poor and in check.
I agree with that. Also - in general I have very little patience with anri-vaxxers, but I was a bit disappointed with the Covid vaccines. When they first came out there was talk of reaching herd immunity by getting everyone vaccinated. Maybe it took a while to become clear that was never on the cards as the vaccines don't do enough to stop people getting infected and then infecting others. But there was, I think, sometimes an exaggerated claim as to how important it was to get vaccinated *to protect others* by preventing yourself from spreading the virus. Of course I am super happy and grateful that vaccines became available so quickly - there's a good chance it saved my parents' lives. But how does it go? "success=reality minus expectations" expectations management should have been better from the start.
I’m not sure I agree. Sure, from the perspective of someone clued up and interested in current affairs and a bit more savvy on public health matters you might be quite accepting of a nuanced message e.g “these vaccines don’t solve all our problems but you should go get it anyway because it’s better to get it than not at all.” But the need at the time was to get as many people as possible vaccinated, and if you are inserting nuance you are inserting uncertainty, and more reasons why people don’t want to go and get one.
It’s a very difficult balancing act. Honesty in matters of healthcare is incredibly important, but also so is simplicity of messaging. A lot of literature written about health is deliberately kept simple and un-controversial for that reason. Dig deeply into any medical treatment or condition and you’ll find the picture is often less clear.
Yes I agree it is a dilemma. But I would (almost) always err on the side of being honest. It might have a short term cost, but in the longer term it's much better to try and keep people's trust.
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Before multiculturalism we had anti-racism. As for Suella Braverman, she seems to be following GOP talking points, not least on tent cities. Was she at that recent conference?
A few of the Tory right have used language recently that belongs more to US culture wars than to British ones. I think they need to be careful there because they risk sounding a bit alien in the UK context. Kemi does it a bit and it sometimes jars. As well as basic terminology, the big focus on BLM is an example - much more of a large scale cultural phenomenon in the US and much more associated with violent disruption than here. If they start talking about Antifa it'll be another one. Goodwin has been talking about "patriots", which isn't a term Brits use much (they say patriotic but rarely refer to people as patriots). The left was also guilty of importing US culture war talking points around the time of the BLM protests - the context, of routinely lethal police violence towards black men, was a very American one.
To be fair the language around the "war on motorists" has been much more British in tone. If you're going to market right wing ideas then it needs to be done in language the electorate will engage with. They also still stick to terms like "lefty" rather than "liberal". If Braverman started talking about liberal judges rather than lefty lawyers it would evoke yellow-rosetted magistrates with laissez-faire attitudes to drug possession.
Yes it’s really interesting to observe the crossover between US and UK media and culture. As someone who consumes a fair amount of both, it’s really obvious and jarring when the discussion crosses over in the ‘wrong’ way.
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
We’re doing better than some, worse than others
But that’s not really the point. The whole philosophy underpinning multiculturalism is collapsing - you can see it everywhere. When that goes a whole lot of political norms and assumptions will topple over, with it
That will make space for unexpected events and people
If multiculturism collapses, what is the single culture that replaces it? Is it supported by Newspeak to ensure no backsliding? Is O'Brien the unexpected person?
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
We’re doing better than some, worse than others
But that’s not really the point. The whole philosophy underpinning multiculturalism is collapsing - you can see it everywhere. When that goes a whole lot of political norms and assumptions will topple over, with it
That will make space for unexpected events and people
If multiculturism collapses, what is the single culture that replaces it? Is it supported by Newspeak to ensure no backsliding? Is O'Brien the unexpected person?
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
We’re doing better than some, worse than others
But that’s not really the point. The whole philosophy underpinning multiculturalism is collapsing - you can see it everywhere. When that goes a whole lot of political norms and assumptions will topple over, with it
That will make space for unexpected events and people
The idea of big “M” multiculturalism (aka Separate Development) collapsed decades ago. Finished off by 7/7
Things like encouraging immigrants to learn English became official policy. Don’t you remember Yasmin Alibhai-Brown whining about being forced to… like!?!… the U.K.?
That was the first shock that damaged the edifice. But it remained standing. Now we are seeing a series of larger quakes and real signs of total demolition
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
We’re doing better than some, worse than others
But that’s not really the point. The whole philosophy underpinning multiculturalism is collapsing - you can see it everywhere. When that goes a whole lot of political norms and assumptions will topple over, with it
That will make space for unexpected events and people
The idea of big “M” multiculturalism (aka Separate Development) collapsed decades ago. Finished off by 7/7
Things like encouraging immigrants to learn English became official policy. Don’t you remember Yasmin Alibhai-Brown whining about being forced to… like!?!… the U.K.?
Encouraging immigrants to learn English pre-dates multiculturalism, at least until the Thatcher government shut down Red Ken's GLC's free classes.
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, current crime rates in the those nations are lower than they have ever been, so we really aren't doing too badly when it comes to law and order. I think people tend to have a perception of worsening crime because they generally become more fearful of crime as they get older.
It's a bit like inflation. How often do you hear "how can crime be falling when my friend was mugged at knifepoint last week?". Same as "how can inflation be falling when things are still expensive?"
One of those examples is a first-order effect related to a personal experience, and the other is a second-order effect.
If crime is falling then there are fewer crimes, whereas if inflation is falling prices are still going up.
The point being that both examples are ones where people's personal experience feels like it contradicts what they are being told about statistics, despite the stats being correct on their own terms.
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
One of the depressing things about the Post Office fiasco is that losing any individual case didn’t put off PO management & lawyers from continuing to prosecute the rest. They knew where the holes in their prosecution case were & it seems (if I understand correctly?) that the few individuals who looked like they were targeting discovery at those weak spots were bought off & silenced with an NDA attached to the payoff.
Using NDAs to hide your wrongdoing seems like it ought to be something we shouldn’t allow to be honest, especially in these incredibly one-sided situations where one party has effectively unlimited capacity to wait out the other in court if they choose to, giving the wronged party a “take it or leave it” choice of payout + NDA or no payout & endless legal fees.
Yes. The problem is that there are some things where it is reasonable to have an NDA - a secret recipe, for example - and how does one determine where the boundary lies? Ultimately through the courts. Where most individuals face more jeopardy than a corporate entity. And so the problem remains, even if you forbid an NDA in cases of wrongdoing.
So I think there's a wider issue at play. We do not have equality before the law. It's simply too hard for most people to use the law to right wrongs that have been done against them, and most people are vulnerable to having the law being used to bully them by someone/some company who is more powerful than them.
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
We’re doing better than some, worse than others
But that’s not really the point. The whole philosophy underpinning multiculturalism is collapsing - you can see it everywhere. When that goes a whole lot of political norms and assumptions will topple over, with it
That will make space for unexpected events and people
If multiculturism collapses, what is the single culture that replaces it? Is it supported by Newspeak to ensure no backsliding? Is O'Brien the unexpected person?
The alternative has always been held out as the French assimilation. But that's hardly been a riproaring success.
The actual reality of life is that we will always have diversity in culture, practices, language, dress code and we will also always see cultures merging, integrating with one another and hybridising over the generations. Real life is much more messy and hard to pin down than the labels suppose.
Either way I think Braverman is POSSIBLY worth a punt on 10/1 as next Tory leader
Badenoch feels lightweight Mordaunt has blown it and she’s Woke Cleverly doesn’t inspire Braverman is positioning herself smartly
Definitely worth a punt, in my view.
She should be the favourite. The only thing holding me back slightly as per my post this morning, is whether she has sufficient support in the parliamentary party. But I think she would get the ERG on board easily, and with a rump party after the election it’s much easier to see.
The Tory party has been (unwisely) searching for a new thatcher ever since they dumped thatcher
Well, here is someone who does come quite close to fitting the thatcher mould. Unapologetically right wing; smart; articulate; self confident, well educated - but also divisive, combative and loathed by the left
They will be tempted
Labour would hope not the same way Blair handled George W Bush.
Of course Trump could also be convicted and jailed by the time Starmer becomes PM
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
In the desire not to "complicate the message" / fight back against antivax propaganda, a number of things were either downplayed, twisted or banned from discussion on social media. The problem is by not treating the public as adults it plays into the Wusselly Brand types whose narrative is the globalist governance always lies to you, grand conspiracy to keep you poor and in check.
I agree with that. Also - in general I have very little patience with anri-vaxxers, but I was a bit disappointed with the Covid vaccines. When they first came out there was talk of reaching herd immunity by getting everyone vaccinated. Maybe it took a while to become clear that was never on the cards as the vaccines don't do enough to stop people getting infected and then infecting others. But there was, I think, sometimes an exaggerated claim as to how important it was to get vaccinated *to protect others* by preventing yourself from spreading the virus. Of course I am super happy and grateful that vaccines became available so quickly - there's a good chance it saved my parents' lives. But how does it go? "success=reality minus expectations" expectations management should have been better from the start.
While the efficacy of the vaccines re transmission is lower, it makes a very noticeable difference to the rate of spread of the virus. R number and all that.
Yes. But I know anti-vaxxers (and vaccine-refusers) who feel entirely justified in their refusal to bow to the pressure to get vaccinated because everyone they know who got vaccinated got Covid anyway.
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
As a Telegraph subscriber (after signing up to follow the late Plato's links) I think there was an abrupt change early this year (or maybe last) when the Telegraph lurched from the right to the populist right, and for no obvious reason (same proprietor; same editor).
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Britain is far better than many other countries in terms of integration. Instead of loathsome creatures like Braverman trying to cause division we should instead be highlighting how well the country has done .
Yes, as 100,000s of people march around the country calling for jihad, and the police are too scared to arrest them; and as 100,000s of white girls are raped by Asian grooming gangs, and the police are too scared to arrest them (at least until recently) let’s just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how fab everything is
More hyperbole . Most of those on marches are not calling for jihad . I’m not saying everything is fab but we’re doing a lot better than many other countries .
We’re doing better than some, worse than others
But that’s not really the point. The whole philosophy underpinning multiculturalism is collapsing - you can see it everywhere. When that goes a whole lot of political norms and assumptions will topple over, with it
That will make space for unexpected events and people
If multiculturism collapses, what is the single culture that replaces it?
Either way I think Braverman is POSSIBLY worth a punt on 10/1 as next Tory leader
Badenoch feels lightweight Mordaunt has blown it and she’s Woke Cleverly doesn’t inspire Braverman is positioning herself smartly
Yes, if just Tory members had the final say Braverman would probably now be favourite to be Leader of the Opposition if Sunak loses the next election to Starmer.
However Tory MPs pick the final 2 and Barclay and Tugendhat will therefore be contenders if MPs do not put Braverman in the last 2 (Tory MPs didn't even put Braverman or Badenoch in the final 3 last summer, despite members polls showing Badenoch would win with the Tory membership)
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
The frustrating thing is the features parts of the Telegraph - magazine, culture, travel, lifestyle etc - are pretty good and at a similar level to the Times, Guardian or FT. Its the news and editorial that's become extremely raggy. It jars: they don't carry it off as effectively as the more influential Daily Mail, which conversely is really shit at the features stuff (unless your taste is Bella or Take a Break).
Russia violates: UN Charter 1945 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1970 Helsinki Accords 1975 Belovezha Accords 1991–92 Budapest Memo 1994 Black Sea Fleet Treaty 1997 Friendship Treaty 1998 Treaty on Azov Sea & Kerch Strait 2003 Karkiv pact 2010 My trolls: Ukraine should sign treaty with Russia
Either way I think Braverman is POSSIBLY worth a punt on 10/1 as next Tory leader
Badenoch feels lightweight Mordaunt has blown it and she’s Woke Cleverly doesn’t inspire Braverman is positioning herself smartly
Definitely worth a punt, in my view.
She should be the favourite. The only thing holding me back slightly as per my post this morning, is whether she has sufficient support in the parliamentary party. But I think she would get the ERG on board easily, and with a rump party after the election it’s much easier to see.
The Tory party has been (unwisely) searching for a new thatcher ever since they dumped thatcher
Well, here is someone who does come quite close to fitting the thatcher mould. Unapologetically right wing; smart; articulate; self confident, well educated - but also divisive, combative and loathed by the left
They will be tempted
Labour would hope not the same way Blair handled George W Bush.
Of course Trump could also be convicted and jailed by the time Starmer becomes PM
Why should Starmer have a problem with Trump? Has he publicly derided him as Cameron did? Has he interfered in the American election on behalf of Trump's opponent, as Major did against Clinton?
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
The frustrating thing is the features parts of the Telegraph - magazine, culture, travel, lifestyle etc - are pretty good and at a similar level to the Times, Guardian or FT. Its the news and editorial that's become extremely raggy. It jars: they don't carry it off as effectively as the more influential Daily Mail, which conversely is really shit at the features stuff.
I found it interesting that for all the shit the Mail gets, during the pandemic they, and I think the Indy, were the only ones who would report on new pre-print research and a) do a fairly decent job of reporting the facts and b) actually provide the link to the paper so you could read it for yourself.
Perhaps they had a decent employee tasked with this, who had some background in the field?
Now the editorial stance of the Mail was mental, often switching from being pro lockdown to anti lockdown of course of the same day and back again. They were one of the biggest critics of Boris throughout, but never seemed to settled on well Boris is shit, but the eggheads are roughly right, or Boris is shit, eggheads are shit, no lockdown, no restrictions.
One of the depressing things about the Post Office fiasco is that losing any individual case didn’t put off PO management & lawyers from continuing to prosecute the rest. They knew where the holes in their prosecution case were & it seems (if I understand correctly?) that the few individuals who looked like they were targeting discovery at those weak spots were bought off & silenced with an NDA attached to the payoff.
Using NDAs to hide your wrongdoing seems like it ought to be something we shouldn’t allow to be honest, especially in these incredibly one-sided situations where one party has effectively unlimited capacity to wait out the other in court if they choose to, giving the wronged party a “take it or leave it” choice of payout + NDA or no payout & endless legal fees.
Yes. The problem is that there are some things where it is reasonable to have an NDA - a secret recipe, for example - and how does one determine where the boundary lies? Ultimately through the courts. Where most individuals face more jeopardy than a corporate entity. And so the problem remains, even if you forbid an NDA in cases of wrongdoing.
So I think there's a wider issue at play. We do not have equality before the law. It's simply too hard for most people to use the law to right wrongs that have been done against them, and most people are vulnerable to having the law being used to bully them by someone/some company who is more powerful than them.
There is ample evidence that bullying was used as a deliberate tactic by the PO. They knew that that the Subpostmasters simply didn't have the resources to prove their innocence. The PO were effectively demanding money with menaces.
The whole organisation seems to have been suffused with this attitude, but quite obviously the chief responsibility lies with the Board. I really cannot imagine what the hapless Paula Vennels is going to say to the Inquiry, but it will be box office when she appears.
Honestly, I think I need to be a bit more clued up on like everything that’s going on,” says pro-Palestinian demonstrator in a surprisingly honest response when asked about her initial reaction to the Hamas attack on October 7th.
Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
If the Inquiry continues in its current vein and its findings are acted upon, we could see hundreds being prosecuted - not just the PO Board but countless middle managers, lawyers, and IT consultants. The dishonesty seems to have been widespread and endemic.
"If".
Lots of people should be prosecuted. Or lose their professional standing. And jobs. And honours. Etc.,. Etc.,.
But I doubt it. First, because the inquiry will take an age to report precisely because there has been so much obstruction that witnesses are going to have to be reinterviewed and we can have no confidence whatsoever that even now we have been provided with all the relevant material. And, second, the chances of any government acting on its findings are vanishingly small. Ultimately, the PO's failings are down to the government who is - and always - has been the sole shareholder and who has completely failed to ensure that it was and is being properly managed.
The PO is currently obstructing the inquiry. That could be stopped overnight if its owner - the government - told it to to.
The inquiry is simply an attempt to fob off everyone concerned until everyone gets bored, dies etc and by then the police will do some pretend review taking another few years and then regretfully state that not enough evidence to prosecute, blah blah.
What about this Wyn Williams guy, CF - is he really as sleepy and indulgent as he appears, or is he secretly a shrewdy?
Some of the procrastination and obfuscation by the witnesses is so outrageously obvious that I would have thought he would have been within his rights to intervene and tell them to start answering the question or else.
Honestly, I think I need to be a bit more clued up on like everything that’s going on,” says pro-Palestinian demonstrator in a surprisingly honest response when asked about her initial reaction to the Hamas attack on October 7th.
Honestly, I think I need to be a bit more clued up on like everything that’s going on,” says pro-Palestinian demonstrator in a surprisingly honest response when asked about her initial reaction to the Hamas attack on October 7th.
New generation of Holocaust / 7th October deniers. Roger Waters already on that bus.
When asked if the attack was justified, Waters falsely says “we don’t know what they did do,”
If only there was film footage or something.
Do those people actually have the faintest clue about the subject matter they're protesting about?
No, they saw something on TikTok about the Israelis stopping Palestinians being able to exist from the River to the Sea and now outraged.
Of all the campaigns to get involved in, Israel / Palestine, is not one for beginners....the potential questions you should be asking yourself and could be asked are very complex.
Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
If the Inquiry continues in its current vein and its findings are acted upon, we could see hundreds being prosecuted - not just the PO Board but countless middle managers, lawyers, and IT consultants. The dishonesty seems to have been widespread and endemic.
It’s really quite astonishing, one of the worst scandals in my lifetime. The only one that comes close in recent years is the Rotherham rapes, and Hillsborough before that.
Nick Wallis’s book “The Great Post Office Scandal”, is well worth reading for anyone who has a personal or professional interest in the case.
It's worth reading for anyone, personal interest or not. Apart from anything else, it teaches some very basic lessons - like don't trust anyone in authority, don't believe computer systems are infallible, and NEVER plead guilty if you know you are not.
In my view, it is a bigger scandal than Hillsborough, because of the numbers involved and the devastation it has caused. It is also more blatant in that the PO doubled down on its dishonesty even when it became obvious, and is still doing so through its obstruction of the Inquiry.
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
I think you will see quite a change in Scandi. We know a number of Swedes. One says when she hears a police siren she just assumes its yet another shooting. And this from a classic bluestocking liberal - husband a defence lawyer specialising in asylum seekers, she a high powered academic who adopted a South Asian child. But enough is enough.
The loss of Sweden's much cherished neutrality is another sign of the scales falling from eyes.
Hassan Eslaiah - CNN has 'suspended all ties' with a photojournalist who appears to have been embedded with Hamas on October 7 at the time of the terror group's barbaric assault on Israel. CNN spokesperson said the network did not 'doubt the journalistic accuracy of the work he has done for us, we have decided to suspend all ties with him.'
No shit he was accurate.....the high production quality of photos and video that has been put out as propaganda certainly had a professional tinge to them.
Anti-Israel protesters are physically attacking Jews attending a screening of the Oct. 7th Hamas Massacre organized by actress Gal Gadot at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles.
Anti-Israel protesters in New York City hit a Jewish man in the head with a chair.
Punch a Nazi appears to have morphed into punch a Jew.
Well there's handy. No need for actual facts when you can just go with perceptions. Makes research so much easier.
I am not going to join in with today's love in for the police, I'm afraid. If we want evidence of the police not understanding the law on protests we need only remind ourselves of the various legal cases they lost in relation to the Everard protests.
As for Tom Winsor criticising Braverman, this is the man - who despite his role as HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary during many of the Met's worst scandals (Operation Midland, for instance) - managed to avoid saying anything critical at all.
I hold no brief for Braverman but the idea that the police are or should be beyond criticism or that there is nothing in their recent history to suggest that they ever behave other than impeccably, lawfully and without showing partiality is wrong, dangerous and naive.
I think that, on balance, it’s probably best that such decisions that might restrict freedom of speech and of assembly, are made by someone elected, who answers directly to the people at an election.
There’s also the small problem that it appears to be almost impossible to hold a senior police officer truly accountable for their actions and decisions.
Why ?
The grounds for a ban in this case are purely about public order, and whether the protest threatens the Met's capacity to maintain it.
Having a politician make such operational policing decisions is not a good idea. If a Home Secretary wants to ban a demonstration for political reasons, she should first legislate to grant herself such powers - or rather, try to do so. I don't think a majority of the House would back such a proposition.
There is a huge double standard from politicians / media who basically bang on day after day about how crap the police, particularly the MET are, racist, sexist, misogynists, etc, then the Home Secretary says something and now its all pearl clutching of how can anybody say our police are biased, they do excellent work in difficult circumstances...
When the police have been taking advise from race grifters and antisemites, who tell them nonsense like screaming about Jihadi was really a discussion of personal struggle, flags used by various Islamists groups are really just the printing of a call to prayer on a flag, etc
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
I think you will see quite a change in Scandi. We know a number of Swedes. One says when she hears a police siren she just assumes its yet another shooting. And this from a classic bluestocking liberal - husband a defence lawyer specialising in asylum seekers, she a high powered academic who adopted a South Asian child. But enough is enough.
The loss of Sweden's much cherished neutrality is another sign of the scales falling from eyes.
Yes, the collapse in multiculturalism is happening in Scandinavia FIRST. Who had that on their bingo card?
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
The frustrating thing is the features parts of the Telegraph - magazine, culture, travel, lifestyle etc - are pretty good and at a similar level to the Times, Guardian or FT. Its the news and editorial that's become extremely raggy. It jars: they don't carry it off as effectively as the more influential Daily Mail, which conversely is really shit at the features stuff.
I found it interesting that for all the shit the Mail gets, during the pandemic they, and I think the Indy, were the only ones who would report on new pre-print research and a) do a fairly decent job of reporting the facts and b) actually provide the link to the paper so you could read it for yourself.
Perhaps they had a decent employee tasked with this, who had some background in the field?
Now the editorial stance of the Mail was mental, often switching from being pro lockdown to anti lockdown of course of the same day and back again. They were one of the biggest critics of Boris throughout, but never seemed to settled on well Boris is shit, but the eggheads are roughly right, or Boris is shit, eggheads are shit, no lockdown, no restrictions.
The aim of the daily mail algo is to float both opinions and see which one gets the most clicks / shares. Articles that get more traction get moved further up the page (so in a sense, somewhat self fulfilling) and they end up producing more similar articles.
The scary thing about the Daily Mail is it rarely pushes an editorial line, in the traditional sense. Obviously it has a line and it will take an editorial stance on certain things, but by and large, it's a mirror held up to its audience. What its audience likes, it makes more of.
Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
If the Inquiry continues in its current vein and its findings are acted upon, we could see hundreds being prosecuted - not just the PO Board but countless middle managers, lawyers, and IT consultants. The dishonesty seems to have been widespread and endemic.
"If".
Lots of people should be prosecuted. Or lose their professional standing. And jobs. And honours. Etc.,. Etc.,.
But I doubt it. First, because the inquiry will take an age to report precisely because there has been so much obstruction that witnesses are going to have to be reinterviewed and we can have no confidence whatsoever that even now we have been provided with all the relevant material. And, second, the chances of any government acting on its findings are vanishingly small. Ultimately, the PO's failings are down to the government who is - and always - has been the sole shareholder and who has completely failed to ensure that it was and is being properly managed.
The PO is currently obstructing the inquiry. That could be stopped overnight if its owner - the government - told it to to.
The inquiry is simply an attempt to fob off everyone concerned until everyone gets bored, dies etc and by then the police will do some pretend review taking another few years and then regretfully state that not enough evidence to prosecute, blah blah.
What about this Wyn Williams guy, CF - is he really as sleepy and indulgent as he appears, or is he secretly a shrewdy?
Some of the procrastination and obfuscation by the witnesses is so outrageously obvious that I would have thought he would have been within his rights to intervene and tell them to start answering the question or else.
He's not part of the charade, shurely?
I don't know. I honestly don't. I worry that he's simply not cynical enough to appreciate the scale of the wrongdoing here, or open-minded enough to realise that organisations and senior people within them can behave really very badly indeed. He is playing in a rules-based game and the Post Office simply isn't.
As every day goes by the more I believe Braverman has a decent shot at PM
The entire edifice of multiculturalism is collapsing. The process has only just begun in Britain, it is much further ahead elsewhere. In Denmark - Denmark! - they are literally bulldozing ethnic ghettoes
Larger countries like France and Britain will follow, in different ways
What will replace multiculti? It has been with us so long it is hard to image a post-multicultural society. But it’s coming. And someone like Braverman might benefit
Before multiculturalism we had anti-racism. As for Suella Braverman, she seems to be following GOP talking points, not least on tent cities. Was she at that recent conference?
A few of the Tory right have used language recently that belongs more to US culture wars than to British ones. I think they need to be careful there because they risk sounding a bit alien in the UK context. Kemi does it a bit and it sometimes jars. As well as basic terminology, the big focus on BLM is an example - much more of a large scale cultural phenomenon in the US and much more associated with violent disruption than here. If they start talking about Antifa it'll be another one. Goodwin has been talking about "patriots", which isn't a term Brits use much (they say patriotic but rarely refer to people as patriots). The left was also guilty of importing US culture war talking points around the time of the BLM protests - the context, of routinely lethal police violence towards black men, was a very American one.
To be fair the language around the "war on motorists" has been much more British in tone. If you're going to market right wing ideas then it needs to be done in language the electorate will engage with. They also still stick to terms like "lefty" rather than "liberal". If Braverman started talking about liberal judges rather than lefty lawyers it would evoke yellow-rosetted magistrates with laissez-faire attitudes to drug possession.
Yes it’s really interesting to observe the crossover between US and UK media and culture. As someone who consumes a fair amount of both, it’s really obvious and jarring when the discussion crosses over in the ‘wrong’ way.
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
The frustrating thing is the features parts of the Telegraph - magazine, culture, travel, lifestyle etc - are pretty good and at a similar level to the Times, Guardian or FT. Its the news and editorial that's become extremely raggy. It jars: they don't carry it off as effectively as the more influential Daily Mail, which conversely is really shit at the features stuff.
I found it interesting that for all the shit the Mail gets, during the pandemic they, and I think the Indy, were the only ones who would report on new pre-print research and a) do a fairly decent job of reporting the facts and b) actually provide the link to the paper so you could read it for yourself.
Perhaps they had a decent employee tasked with this, who had some background in the field?
Now the editorial stance of the Mail was mental, often switching from being pro lockdown to anti lockdown of course of the same day and back again. They were one of the biggest critics of Boris throughout, but never seemed to settled on well Boris is shit, but the eggheads are roughly right, or Boris is shit, eggheads are shit, no lockdown, no restrictions.
Bizarre as it sounds, that is true. I ended up reading lots of decent scientific stories on the Daily Mail website of all places. It really was quite odd. Most likely, the explanation is simply as you suggest. They happened to have an egghead reporter on the staff at the time for whom they suddenly had a demand. In normal times, those hacks expert on half-naked slebs flashing their knickers in taxis command most of the column inches. But those were not normal times.
Either way I think Braverman is POSSIBLY worth a punt on 10/1 as next Tory leader
Badenoch feels lightweight Mordaunt has blown it and she’s Woke Cleverly doesn’t inspire Braverman is positioning herself smartly
Badenoch spoke very well in conversation at the ARC conference. As much as some (TimS) believe the culture war stuff is basically American, plenty of nonsense is gradually creeping into our schools and universities. Partly I think as an unintended result of the 'Big Society' - remember that? Whilst voluntarism might seem like a good thing, the primary actors appear to be the likes of Stonewall who having won the battle over gays rights appear to have been looking for a new project.
I had some sympathy for the police on that occasion. The government had introduced draconian laws on public gatherings. Were they supposed to enforce it or not?
Anyone else shocked that the vaccine from Oxford University turned out to be shit?
#ThirdRateDump
I would once have been shocked that anyone could take the anti-vaccine shit they read in the Telegraph at face value, but following the rise of MAGA and Trump, it's nowadays hard to be shocked at any of the crap that some on the right kid themselves into believing.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was not shit. It was and is an excellent vaccine and, crucially, saved countless lives as a consequence of being first on the scene. What is now established is that the vaccines that followed it months later were even better.
The trouble (with an eye to future pandemics) is that the anti-vaxxers turned out to be right in at least some of their criticisms, as did the President of France.
No, they are still talking shit.
If you actually followed back to the actual story, it’s about suing over an adverse reaction. All medicines have a possibility of adverse reactions. The vaccine in question has a lower rate of adverse reactions than many other medicines.
While all such things are a tragedy to those effected, the real question is the ratio of good vs harm. Which is scientifically quantified and assessed.
The Telegraph's anti-lockdown / anti-vax stance from the get go of the pandemic was very odd for a supposed serious newspaper of the right. There are certainly arguments around cost benefit of particularly later lockdowns, but the risk / reward on vaccine is undeniable massively on the positive, yet they still prime these bad faith articles spinning the Russell Brand esque stuff.
Didn't the Telegraph stop making much attempt at being a "serious newspaper" quite a few years ago? (I haven't actually read it for few years so could be mistaken)
The frustrating thing is the features parts of the Telegraph - magazine, culture, travel, lifestyle etc - are pretty good and at a similar level to the Times, Guardian or FT. Its the news and editorial that's become extremely raggy. It jars: they don't carry it off as effectively as the more influential Daily Mail, which conversely is really shit at the features stuff.
I found it interesting that for all the shit the Mail gets, during the pandemic they, and I think the Indy, were the only ones who would report on new pre-print research and a) do a fairly decent job of reporting the facts and b) actually provide the link to the paper so you could read it for yourself.
Perhaps they had a decent employee tasked with this, who had some background in the field?
Now the editorial stance of the Mail was mental, often switching from being pro lockdown to anti lockdown of course of the same day and back again. They were one of the biggest critics of Boris throughout, but never seemed to settled on well Boris is shit, but the eggheads are roughly right, or Boris is shit, eggheads are shit, no lockdown, no restrictions.
Bizarre as it sounds, that is true. I ended up reading lots of decent scientific stories on the Daily Mail website of all places. It really was quite odd. Most likely, the explanation is simply as you suggest. They happened to have an egghead reporter on the staff at the time for whom they suddenly had a demand. In normal times, those hacks expert on half-naked slebs flashing their knickers in taxis command most of the column inches. But those were not normal times.
Yes, despite being generally noxious, the Mail does get it right sometimes.
I had some sympathy for the police on that occasion. The government had introduced draconian laws on public gatherings. Were they supposed to enforce it or not?
If the police had applied the same rules to the BLM protestors and the Sarah Everard vigil, there wouldn’t have been a problem.
Either way I think Braverman is POSSIBLY worth a punt on 10/1 as next Tory leader
Badenoch feels lightweight Mordaunt has blown it and she’s Woke Cleverly doesn’t inspire Braverman is positioning herself smartly
Badenoch spoke very well in conversation at the ARC conference. As much as some (TimS) believe the culture war stuff is basically American, plenty of nonsense is gradually creeping into our schools and universities. Partly I think as an unintended result of the 'Big Society' - remember that? Whilst voluntarism might seem like a good thing, the primary actors appear to be the likes of Stonewall who having won the battle over gays rights appear to have been looking for a new project.
Either way I think Braverman is POSSIBLY worth a punt on 10/1 as next Tory leader
Badenoch feels lightweight Mordaunt has blown it and she’s Woke Cleverly doesn’t inspire Braverman is positioning herself smartly
Badenoch spoke very well in conversation at the ARC conference. As much as some (TimS) believe the culture war stuff is basically American, plenty of nonsense is gradually creeping into our schools and universities. Partly I think as an unintended result of the 'Big Society' - remember that? Whilst voluntarism might seem like a good thing, the primary actors appear to be the likes of Stonewall who having won the battle over gays rights appear to have been looking for a new project.
Comments
It’s a very difficult balancing act. Honesty in matters of healthcare is incredibly important, but also so is simplicity of messaging. A lot of literature written about health is deliberately kept simple and un-controversial for that reason. Dig deeply into any medical treatment or condition and you’ll find the picture is often less clear.
To be fair the language around the "war on motorists" has been much more British in tone. If you're going to market right wing ideas then it needs to be done in language the electorate will engage with. They also still stick to terms like "lefty" rather than "liberal". If Braverman started talking about liberal judges rather than lefty lawyers it would evoke yellow-rosetted magistrates with laissez-faire attitudes to drug possession.
Truss, Badenoch and Braverman are very safe, as is Cleverly - one of the safest seats of all. Mordaunt is at high risk in Portsmouth. JRM is also at risk in Somerset, but that would require a pretty big swing still.
Things like encouraging immigrants to learn English became official policy. Don’t you remember Yasmin Alibhai-Brown whining about being forced to… like!?!… the U.K.?
If crime is falling then there are fewer crimes, whereas if inflation is falling prices are still going up.
So I think there's a wider issue at play. We do not have equality before the law. It's simply too hard for most people to use the law to right wrongs that have been done against them, and most people are vulnerable to having the law being used to bully them by someone/some company who is more powerful than them.
The actual reality of life is that we will always have diversity in culture, practices, language, dress code and we will also always see cultures merging, integrating with one another and hybridising over the generations. Real life is much more messy and hard to pin down than the labels suppose.
Of course Trump could also be convicted and jailed by the time Starmer becomes PM
However Tory MPs pick the final 2 and Barclay and Tugendhat will therefore be contenders if MPs do not put Braverman in the last 2 (Tory MPs didn't even put Braverman or Badenoch in the final 3 last summer, despite members polls showing Badenoch would win with the Tory membership)
Russia violates:
UN Charter 1945
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1970
Helsinki Accords 1975
Belovezha Accords 1991–92
Budapest Memo 1994
Black Sea Fleet Treaty 1997
Friendship Treaty 1998
Treaty on Azov Sea & Kerch Strait 2003
Karkiv pact 2010
My trolls: Ukraine should sign treaty with Russia
Perhaps they had a decent employee tasked with this, who had some background in the field?
Now the editorial stance of the Mail was mental, often switching from being pro lockdown to anti lockdown of course of the same day and back again. They were one of the biggest critics of Boris throughout, but never seemed to settled on well Boris is shit, but the eggheads are roughly right, or Boris is shit, eggheads are shit, no lockdown, no restrictions.
The whole organisation seems to have been suffused with this attitude, but quite obviously the chief responsibility lies with the Board. I really cannot imagine what the hapless Paula Vennels is going to say to the Inquiry, but it will be box office when she appears.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1722578950163988724?s=20
New generation of Holocaust / 7th October deniers. As believable as Drakeford not knowing he had WhatsApp.
Roger Waters already on that bus.
When asked if the attack was justified, Waters falsely says “we don’t know what they did do,”
If only there was film footage or something, actually made and released by the terrorists. Or perhaps it was actually the CIA and deep fakery.
Some of the procrastination and obfuscation by the witnesses is so outrageously obvious that I would have thought he would have been within his rights to intervene and tell them to start answering the question or else.
He's not part of the charade, shurely?
Of all the campaigns to get involved in, Israel / Palestine, is not one for beginners....the potential questions you should be asking yourself and could be asked are very complex.
In my view, it is a bigger scandal than Hillsborough, because of the numbers involved and the devastation it has caused. It is also more blatant in that the PO doubled down on its dishonesty even when it became obvious, and is still doing so through its obstruction of the Inquiry.
She's just going to keep dialling up the rhetoric until he finally acts.
Much like you when/if you vote for Starmer.
The loss of Sweden's much cherished neutrality is another sign of the scales falling from eyes.
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_patent
You have a good memory.
No shit he was accurate.....the high production quality of photos and video that has been put out as propaganda certainly had a professional tinge to them.
Come on you lot - own up.
Anti-Israel protesters in New York City hit a Jewish man in the head with a chair.
Punch a Nazi appears to have morphed into punch a Jew.
The grounds for a ban in this case are purely about public order, and whether the protest threatens the Met's capacity to maintain it.
Having a politician make such operational policing decisions is not a good idea. If a Home Secretary wants to ban a demonstration for political reasons, she should first legislate to grant herself such powers - or rather, try to do so.
I don't think a majority of the House would back such a proposition.
When the police have been taking advise from race grifters and antisemites, who tell them nonsense like screaming about Jihadi was really a discussion of personal struggle, flags used by various Islamists groups are really just the printing of a call to prayer on a flag, etc
The scary thing about the Daily Mail is it rarely pushes an editorial line, in the traditional sense. Obviously it has a line and it will take an editorial stance on certain things, but by and large, it's a mirror held up to its audience. What its audience likes, it makes more of.
Oops.
So now it’s either he relinquishes his authority to the Tory right, or he sacks her, surely.
NEW THREAD
"defund the police"
"iconoclasm"
Not really the same thing, is it ?
And turns out she was right about 'some of the policing decisions'.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/london-police-apologise-pay-compensation-women-held-vigil-2023-09-13/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NrDc4K7K-0
If I was to give an example to prove that the culture war isn't American or non-British, I wouldn't pick ARC. ARC is distinctly international: see https://www.arcforum.com/advisory-board
(Parenthetically this feeds into my conviction that we have internationalised our thought, to the detriment of the British state and people)