The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Why 100%? If someone is already legitimately in the UK, but then wishes to claim asylum, what's the point of shipping them abroad at that stage?
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
Processing times can be years and Germany has a major issue with rejected applicants remaining in Germany, so in practice it still adds up to an attempt to move the problem somewhere else.
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Is this for medical reasons AAMOI. I ask because many of my friends have cut down drinking significantly, as have I. One has given it up completely but does from time to time bemoan the absence of a good glass of burgundy, or whatever. I have no idea why they don't just have the odd glass of wine.
I get the "all or nothing" mentality but it seems illogical. My friend doesn't think that one glass will lead to 10 pints of snakebite and five bottles of a decent red.
Yes, I don’t understand the “give up entirely” brigade unless you are in danger of actual alcoholism. There is ample evidence SOME drinking is physically good for you - phenols, red wines, etc - and even if you dispute that (as some doctors do), it is indisputable that the social benefits of MODERATE drinking are significant. The Mediterranean diet specifically includes a few glasses of vino as part of the deal, it makes you happier and more social and outgoing even if there are NO physiological positives
Unless you are a problem drinker, why quit entirely?
I simply want to scale back to a more sensible intake
But you are an alcoholic, aren't you? Hence the amount of headspace taken up with thoughts of booze, what to have, how much of it, the rules and safeguards required to keep it all under control. I also was/am and so I recognize this very well. It was age, essentially, that helped me out.
Yes, i am an alcoholic, no question
However I am also possessed of SUPER HUMAN WILLPOWER
Eg I quite heroin at the age of 37 when practically everyone around me (God bless them, they tried to help) had given up on me. I did it with will power. You just have to want something ENOUGH, and - all being equal - you can do it. Quitting cigs was a doddle, for me
So, I reckon I can do this. Moderate my booze intake to a sensible level so I can still enjoy wine as and when. Wish me luck
How would you define 'alcoholic' here? (Just want to see if I'm one.)
Different types. Eg habitual but restrained drinking where you're always thinking about it. When should I have one? Looking forward to it intensely. Defining your day by it. That's alky.
Also hardly ever drinking, or even tee total, but always conscious of that. Look at me not drinking. Here I am not drinking. As I read this book I am not drinking. That's alky.
Then there’s the binge type. Fine not drinking, no problem at all, but cannot have one. Have one and the brain chemistry changes, you have to have more, a lot more. Alky.
Then there’s the binge type. Fine not drinking, no problem at all, but cannot have about four and the brain chemistry changes, you have to have more, a lot more. Less than four fine. Still alky?
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Why 100%? If someone is already legitimately in the UK, but then wishes to claim asylum, what's the point of shipping them abroad at that stage?
How are they already in the UK? The purpose is to remove the incentive to use the asylum process as a tool to hang out in the UK/disappear in UK society when rejected.
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Is this for medical reasons AAMOI. I ask because many of my friends have cut down drinking significantly, as have I. One has given it up completely but does from time to time bemoan the absence of a good glass of burgundy, or whatever. I have no idea why they don't just have the odd glass of wine.
I get the "all or nothing" mentality but it seems illogical. My friend doesn't think that one glass will lead to 10 pints of snakebite and five bottles of a decent red.
Yes, I don’t understand the “give up entirely” brigade unless you are in danger of actual alcoholism. There is ample evidence SOME drinking is physically good for you - phenols, red wines, etc - and even if you dispute that (as some doctors do), it is indisputable that the social benefits of MODERATE drinking are significant. The Mediterranean diet specifically includes a few glasses of vino as part of the deal, it makes you happier and more social and outgoing even if there are NO physiological positives
Unless you are a problem drinker, why quit entirely?
I simply want to scale back to a more sensible intake
I find taking drink-free days (DFDs) much better and easier than the rather odd idea of just having "half a small glass of red" each day.
How to choose such days? Like @TOPPING , pairing good food with wine is wise; similarly not drinking if you are eating just reheated soup from the freezer.
Tonight, I'll eat butter chicken, made from scratch, in the traditional way. All the stages. No corners cut. I will of course imbibe wine with my dinner, and probably before it it.
After dinner, I can pretty much easily switch to rooibos tea, which allows for a decent night's sleep.
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
Processing times can be years and Germany has a major issue with rejected applicants remaining in Germany, so in practice it still adds up to an attempt to move the problem somewhere else.
Revolutionary lefty idea but we could actually fund the courts and streamline the court process?
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Why 100%? If someone is already legitimately in the UK, but then wishes to claim asylum, what's the point of shipping them abroad at that stage?
How are they already in the UK? The purpose is to remove the incentive to use the asylum process as a tool to hang out in the UK/disappear in UK society when rejected.
Let's say I'm from Turkmenistan and I'm visiting my cousin who lives in the UK. While I'm here, the Turkmenistan government declares they're going to arrest me for my political activities. I might, at that point, go to the UK authorities and seek asylum.
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Is this for medical reasons AAMOI. I ask because many of my friends have cut down drinking significantly, as have I. One has given it up completely but does from time to time bemoan the absence of a good glass of burgundy, or whatever. I have no idea why they don't just have the odd glass of wine.
I get the "all or nothing" mentality but it seems illogical. My friend doesn't think that one glass will lead to 10 pints of snakebite and five bottles of a decent red.
Yes, I don’t understand the “give up entirely” brigade unless you are in danger of actual alcoholism. There is ample evidence SOME drinking is physically good for you - phenols, red wines, etc - and even if you dispute that (as some doctors do), it is indisputable that the social benefits of MODERATE drinking are significant. The Mediterranean diet specifically includes a few glasses of vino as part of the deal, it makes you happier and more social and outgoing even if there are NO physiological positives
Unless you are a problem drinker, why quit entirely?
I simply want to scale back to a more sensible intake
But you are an alcoholic, aren't you? Hence the amount of headspace taken up with thoughts of booze, what to have, how much of it, the rules and safeguards required to keep it all under control. I also was/am and so I recognize this very well. It was age, essentially, that helped me out.
Yes, i am an alcoholic, no question
However I am also possessed of SUPER HUMAN WILLPOWER
Eg I quite heroin at the age of 37 when practically everyone around me (God bless them, they tried to help) had given up on me. I did it with will power. You just have to want something ENOUGH, and - all being equal - you can do it. Quitting cigs was a doddle, for me
So, I reckon I can do this. Moderate my booze intake to a sensible level so I can still enjoy wine as and when. Wish me luck
How would you define 'alcoholic' here? (Just want to see if I'm one.)
Different types. Eg habitual but restrained drinking where you're always thinking about it. When should I have one? Looking forward to it intensely. Defining your day by it. That's alky.
Also hardly ever drinking, or even tee total, but always conscious of that. Look at me not drinking. Here I am not drinking. As I read this book I am not drinking. That's alky.
Then there’s the binge type. Fine not drinking, no problem at all, but cannot have one. Have one and the brain chemistry changes, you have to have more, a lot more. Alky.
Then there’s the binge type. Fine not drinking, no problem at all, but cannot have about four and the brain chemistry changes, you have to have more, a lot more. Less than four fine. Still alky?
Well we're all different, so maybe, but this sounds on the face of it more of a 'normal' relationship with booze.
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Why 100%? If someone is already legitimately in the UK, but then wishes to claim asylum, what's the point of shipping them abroad at that stage?
How are they already in the UK? The purpose is to remove the incentive to use the asylum process as a tool to hang out in the UK/disappear in UK society when rejected.
Let's say I'm from Turkmenistan and I'm visiting my cousin who lives in the UK. While I'm here, the Turkmenistan government declares they're going to arrest me for my political activities. I might, at that point, go to the UK authorities and seek asylum.
If said person subsequently travels back to Turkmenistan for a holiday, should their aslyum claim be rejected/revoked?
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Why 100%? If someone is already legitimately in the UK, but then wishes to claim asylum, what's the point of shipping them abroad at that stage?
How are they already in the UK? The purpose is to remove the incentive to use the asylum process as a tool to hang out in the UK/disappear in UK society when rejected.
Let's say I'm from Turkmenistan and I'm visiting my cousin who lives in the UK. While I'm here, the Turkmenistan government declares they're going to arrest me for my political activities. I might, at that point, go to the UK authorities and seek asylum.
If said person subsequently travels back to Turkmenistan for a holiday, should their aslyum claim be rejected/revoked?
I see Michelle Obama is down to 9/1 for the Democratic nomination.
Just what on earth are people smoking?
Biden has a Bob Dole moment and it flows from there.
He's had plenty and even if he has a massive one I don't see how it ends up with Michelle Obama.
That's just a fantasy.
Shows Biden has it sewn up, bar death. And even then it'd be Kamala Harris. So yes the chance of it being M Obama - well it ain't 9-1 that's for certain.
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Why 100%? If someone is already legitimately in the UK, but then wishes to claim asylum, what's the point of shipping them abroad at that stage?
How are they already in the UK? The purpose is to remove the incentive to use the asylum process as a tool to hang out in the UK/disappear in UK society when rejected.
Let's say I'm from Turkmenistan and I'm visiting my cousin who lives in the UK. While I'm here, the Turkmenistan government declares they're going to arrest me for my political activities. I might, at that point, go to the UK authorities and seek asylum.
Then you can be processed offshore. Otherwise there is a big incentive for someone wanting to immigrate for economic reasons, but doesn't qualify, to just come to the UK on a tourist visa, apply for asylum, string the process out for 2-3 years while working at 5x the money I can earn back home. Then, upon finally being rejected, the UK will pay for my flight home where I can use my savings. And if I really want to, I can just become an illegal immigrant and stay working here while the UK government can't find me.
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Is this for medical reasons AAMOI. I ask because many of my friends have cut down drinking significantly, as have I. One has given it up completely but does from time to time bemoan the absence of a good glass of burgundy, or whatever. I have no idea why they don't just have the odd glass of wine.
I get the "all or nothing" mentality but it seems illogical. My friend doesn't think that one glass will lead to 10 pints of snakebite and five bottles of a decent red.
Yes, I don’t understand the “give up entirely” brigade unless you are in danger of actual alcoholism. There is ample evidence SOME drinking is physically good for you - phenols, red wines, etc - and even if you dispute that (as some doctors do), it is indisputable that the social benefits of MODERATE drinking are significant. The Mediterranean diet specifically includes a few glasses of vino as part of the deal, it makes you happier and more social and outgoing even if there are NO physiological positives
Unless you are a problem drinker, why quit entirely?
I simply want to scale back to a more sensible intake
But you are an alcoholic, aren't you? Hence the amount of headspace taken up with thoughts of booze, what to have, how much of it, the rules and safeguards required to keep it all under control. I also was/am and so I recognize this very well. It was age, essentially, that helped me out.
Yes, i am an alcoholic, no question
However I am also possessed of SUPER HUMAN WILLPOWER
Eg I quite heroin at the age of 37 when practically everyone around me (God bless them, they tried to help) had given up on me. I did it with will power. You just have to want something ENOUGH, and - all being equal - you can do it. Quitting cigs was a doddle, for me
So, I reckon I can do this. Moderate my booze intake to a sensible level so I can still enjoy wine as and when. Wish me luck
80-100 units a week is my average intake. I believe that is not unusual in the legal profession.
I don't smoke or take drugs. I do take a lot of exercise, and have cut right down on red meat, and cut out sausages.
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Is this for medical reasons AAMOI. I ask because many of my friends have cut down drinking significantly, as have I. One has given it up completely but does from time to time bemoan the absence of a good glass of burgundy, or whatever. I have no idea why they don't just have the odd glass of wine.
I get the "all or nothing" mentality but it seems illogical. My friend doesn't think that one glass will lead to 10 pints of snakebite and five bottles of a decent red.
Yes, I don’t understand the “give up entirely” brigade unless you are in danger of actual alcoholism. There is ample evidence SOME drinking is physically good for you - phenols, red wines, etc - and even if you dispute that (as some doctors do), it is indisputable that the social benefits of MODERATE drinking are significant. The Mediterranean diet specifically includes a few glasses of vino as part of the deal, it makes you happier and more social and outgoing even if there are NO physiological positives
Unless you are a problem drinker, why quit entirely?
I simply want to scale back to a more sensible intake
But you are an alcoholic, aren't you? Hence the amount of headspace taken up with thoughts of booze, what to have, how much of it, the rules and safeguards required to keep it all under control. I also was/am and so I recognize this very well. It was age, essentially, that helped me out.
Yes, i am an alcoholic, no question
However I am also possessed of SUPER HUMAN WILLPOWER
Eg I quite heroin at the age of 37 when practically everyone around me (God bless them, they tried to help) had given up on me. I did it with will power. You just have to want something ENOUGH, and - all being equal - you can do it. Quitting cigs was a doddle, for me
So, I reckon I can do this. Moderate my booze intake to a sensible level so I can still enjoy wine as and when. Wish me luck
80-100 units a week is my average intake. I believe that is not unusual in the legal profession.
I don't smoke or take drugs. I do take a lot of exercise, and have cut right down on red meat, and cut out sausages.
I can't believe anyone would prefer booze to sausages.
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Am I the only one who thinks the moral outrage is sending potentially vulnerable refugees elsewhere to be processed, taking ages to to do it and leaving them in uncertainty; but is immensely relaxed about resettling a proven refugee in a third country and setting them up there?
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Is this for medical reasons AAMOI. I ask because many of my friends have cut down drinking significantly, as have I. One has given it up completely but does from time to time bemoan the absence of a good glass of burgundy, or whatever. I have no idea why they don't just have the odd glass of wine.
I get the "all or nothing" mentality but it seems illogical. My friend doesn't think that one glass will lead to 10 pints of snakebite and five bottles of a decent red.
Yes, I don’t understand the “give up entirely” brigade unless you are in danger of actual alcoholism. There is ample evidence SOME drinking is physically good for you - phenols, red wines, etc - and even if you dispute that (as some doctors do), it is indisputable that the social benefits of MODERATE drinking are significant. The Mediterranean diet specifically includes a few glasses of vino as part of the deal, it makes you happier and more social and outgoing even if there are NO physiological positives
Unless you are a problem drinker, why quit entirely?
I simply want to scale back to a more sensible intake
But you are an alcoholic, aren't you? Hence the amount of headspace taken up with thoughts of booze, what to have, how much of it, the rules and safeguards required to keep it all under control. I also was/am and so I recognize this very well. It was age, essentially, that helped me out.
Yes, i am an alcoholic, no question
However I am also possessed of SUPER HUMAN WILLPOWER
Eg I quite heroin at the age of 37 when practically everyone around me (God bless them, they tried to help) had given up on me. I did it with will power. You just have to want something ENOUGH, and - all being equal - you can do it. Quitting cigs was a doddle, for me
So, I reckon I can do this. Moderate my booze intake to a sensible level so I can still enjoy wine as and when. Wish me luck
80-100 units a week is my average intake. I believe that is not unusual in the legal profession.
I don't smoke or take drugs. I do take a lot of exercise, and have cut right down on red meat, and cut out sausages.
I can't believe anyone would prefer booze to sausages.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Why 100%? If someone is already legitimately in the UK, but then wishes to claim asylum, what's the point of shipping them abroad at that stage?
How are they already in the UK? The purpose is to remove the incentive to use the asylum process as a tool to hang out in the UK/disappear in UK society when rejected.
Let's say I'm from Turkmenistan and I'm visiting my cousin who lives in the UK. While I'm here, the Turkmenistan government declares they're going to arrest me for my political activities. I might, at that point, go to the UK authorities and seek asylum.
If said person subsequently travels back to Turkmenistan for a holiday, should their aslyum claim be rejected/revoked?
What's that got to do with the price of fish?
It's a good litmus test for people's attitude to the asylum system.
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Why 100%? If someone is already legitimately in the UK, but then wishes to claim asylum, what's the point of shipping them abroad at that stage?
How are they already in the UK? The purpose is to remove the incentive to use the asylum process as a tool to hang out in the UK/disappear in UK society when rejected.
Let's say I'm from Turkmenistan and I'm visiting my cousin who lives in the UK. While I'm here, the Turkmenistan government declares they're going to arrest me for my political activities. I might, at that point, go to the UK authorities and seek asylum.
Then you can be processed offshore. Otherwise there is a big incentive for someone wanting to immigrate for economic reasons, but doesn't qualify, to just come to the UK on a tourist visa, apply for asylum, string the process out for 2-3 years while working at 5x the money I can earn back home. Then, upon finally being rejected, the UK will pay for my flight home where I can use my savings. And if I really want to, I can just become an illegal immigrant and stay working here while the UK government can't find me.
Those in the asylum claims process are not allowed to work. I've not seen any evidence suggesting that a significant proportion of them do work. Do you have any?
It's not those seeking asylum who are stringing the process out. It's the UK government who haven't resourced the process sufficiently, leading to long backlogs.
Your position seems to be based on Daily Mail-esque fantasies about asylum seekers. For most, the goal is to obtain asylum: they follow the rules we set them, and they want a fast answer to their application.
If the concern is around people illegally working in the UK when they are not allowed to, then we should seek solutions focused on that. Most people illegally working in the UK when they are not allowed to just enter the UK legally and overstay. They're not asylum seekers. Target those people with better enforcement or, as often suggested here, hit the employers of such people.
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Am I the only one who thinks the moral outrage is sending potentially vulnerable refugees elsewhere to be processed, taking ages to to do it and leaving them in uncertainty; but is immensely relaxed about resettling a proven refugee in a third country and setting them up there?
Need to separate the principle from whether Rwanda is a good choice of third country.
Is it supposed to be a deterrent or a safe country? Possible to be both, I suppose. But a bit of a stretch.
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Am I the only one who thinks the moral outrage is sending potentially vulnerable refugees elsewhere to be processed, taking ages to to do it and leaving them in uncertainty; but is immensely relaxed about resettling a proven refugee in a third country and setting them up there?
My preferred approach to asylum would actually be to set up application posts around the world. Applications require biometric information that is permanently kept on record. Then each application gets a score rather than just a yes-no decision. Higher scores are based on things like being a targeted ethnic/religious/sexual minority or democratic activist, rather than just living in a warzone. Then we can have the numbers for how many would qualify under different generosity/stringency levels and have an informed debate on what is a practical number.
The article says the proposal is similar to the UK's Rwanda scheme, but it isn't. There are lots of proposals for offshore processing, but the UK scheme is more offshore final settlement.
I feel less strongly about final settlement. But we should absolutely be doing 100% of asylum processing outside the UK.
Am I the only one who thinks the moral outrage is sending potentially vulnerable refugees elsewhere to be processed, taking ages to to do it and leaving them in uncertainty; but is immensely relaxed about resettling a proven refugee in a third country and setting them up there?
Its all quite weird. We are 1% of the worlds population and take around 1% of the refugees. Now many would claim we are "full" and can't take any more but a quick look at the governments shortage occupation list and overseas student plans say otherwise.
We need to build more houses and infrastructure (whether legal migration/asylum/illegals) and process the vast majority of claims, including appeals in under 3 months. Then just get on with it and worry about fixing the more important things.
I’m always thinking about the next poll, even when I’m not analysing one. Can’t manage three or four a day like I could in 2015 though "Waiting for Survation" is a fun meme, however, starting this week we are stepping up the publication of our regular online omnibus polling & will be producing Westminster voting trackers every other week, on Fridays, ramping up to weekly closer to the general election.
If you'd like to be involved in our UK omnibus, with fieldwork for questions launching Tuesdays with results returned by Thursday, get in touch: researchteam@survation.com
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
By the way, I initially only read the first part of the thread title and had a bit of a jolt.
Don't even need the dead bit to give people a jolt. A colleague had to explain to me never to use the name alone of an elderly colleague in the header of an email if it was something other than their demise - always qualify it up front. e.g. "Festschift in honour of Prof. Branestawm".
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
I see this a lot at Bath in other subjects. Pharmacy is running at 88% female, Psychology must be over 90% female.
And yet, no outcry.
One of the NHS staffing issues is the feminisation of the workforce. On the whole its great to have both genders but those pesky women have a horrible habit of (a) wanting to have kids in their 20's and 30's and then often discover the joys of part time working...
Its not an issue and arguably a good thing that this happens, but you need to plan your workforce with this in mind.
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Is this for medical reasons AAMOI. I ask because many of my friends have cut down drinking significantly, as have I. One has given it up completely but does from time to time bemoan the absence of a good glass of burgundy, or whatever. I have no idea why they don't just have the odd glass of wine.
I get the "all or nothing" mentality but it seems illogical. My friend doesn't think that one glass will lead to 10 pints of snakebite and five bottles of a decent red.
Yes, I don’t understand the “give up entirely” brigade unless you are in danger of actual alcoholism. There is ample evidence SOME drinking is physically good for you - phenols, red wines, etc - and even if you dispute that (as some doctors do), it is indisputable that the social benefits of MODERATE drinking are significant. The Mediterranean diet specifically includes a few glasses of vino as part of the deal, it makes you happier and more social and outgoing even if there are NO physiological positives
Unless you are a problem drinker, why quit entirely?
I simply want to scale back to a more sensible intake
But you are an alcoholic, aren't you? Hence the amount of headspace taken up with thoughts of booze, what to have, how much of it, the rules and safeguards required to keep it all under control. I also was/am and so I recognize this very well. It was age, essentially, that helped me out.
Yes, i am an alcoholic, no question
However I am also possessed of SUPER HUMAN WILLPOWER
Eg I quite heroin at the age of 37 when practically everyone around me (God bless them, they tried to help) had given up on me. I did it with will power. You just have to want something ENOUGH, and - all being equal - you can do it. Quitting cigs was a doddle, for me
So, I reckon I can do this. Moderate my booze intake to a sensible level so I can still enjoy wine as and when. Wish me luck
80-100 units a week is my average intake. I believe that is not unusual in the legal profession.
I don't smoke or take drugs. I do take a lot of exercise, and have cut right down on red meat, and cut out sausages.
I can't believe anyone would prefer booze to sausages.
Vegan venison sausages?
By a strange coincidence, I had some vegan sausages for lunch today. Can't be sure they were venison, however.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Is this for medical reasons AAMOI. I ask because many of my friends have cut down drinking significantly, as have I. One has given it up completely but does from time to time bemoan the absence of a good glass of burgundy, or whatever. I have no idea why they don't just have the odd glass of wine.
I get the "all or nothing" mentality but it seems illogical. My friend doesn't think that one glass will lead to 10 pints of snakebite and five bottles of a decent red.
Yes, I don’t understand the “give up entirely” brigade unless you are in danger of actual alcoholism. There is ample evidence SOME drinking is physically good for you - phenols, red wines, etc - and even if you dispute that (as some doctors do), it is indisputable that the social benefits of MODERATE drinking are significant. The Mediterranean diet specifically includes a few glasses of vino as part of the deal, it makes you happier and more social and outgoing even if there are NO physiological positives
Unless you are a problem drinker, why quit entirely?
I simply want to scale back to a more sensible intake
But you are an alcoholic, aren't you? Hence the amount of headspace taken up with thoughts of booze, what to have, how much of it, the rules and safeguards required to keep it all under control. I also was/am and so I recognize this very well. It was age, essentially, that helped me out.
Yes, i am an alcoholic, no question
However I am also possessed of SUPER HUMAN WILLPOWER
Eg I quite heroin at the age of 37 when practically everyone around me (God bless them, they tried to help) had given up on me. I did it with will power. You just have to want something ENOUGH, and - all being equal - you can do it. Quitting cigs was a doddle, for me
So, I reckon I can do this. Moderate my booze intake to a sensible level so I can still enjoy wine as and when. Wish me luck
80-100 units a week is my average intake. I believe that is not unusual in the legal profession.
I don't smoke or take drugs. I do take a lot of exercise, and have cut right down on red meat, and cut out sausages.
I can't believe anyone would prefer booze to sausages.
Vegan venison sausages?
By a strange coincidence, I had some vegan sausages for lunch today. Can't be sure they were venison, however.
If they weren't venison, how could you be sure they were vegan?
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
I see this a lot at Bath in other subjects. Pharmacy is running at 88% female, Psychology must be over 90% female.
And yet, no outcry.
One of the NHS staffing issues is the feminisation of the workforce. On the whole its great to have both genders but those pesky women have a horrible habit of (a) wanting to have kids in their 20's and 30's and then often discover the joys of part time working...
Its not an issue and arguably a good thing that this happens, but you need to plan your workforce with this in mind.
There perhaps hasn't been as much outcry as with women in engineering, but there certainly has been concern and comment. I've commented on in academic publications. There's a whole literature discussing the case study of the feminisation of the Russian medical workforce ( https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/12573903.pdf ). When Athena SWAN activity expanded to these more traditional female-dominated disciplinary areas, we've sought to address gender equality issues from this different perspective.
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Is this for medical reasons AAMOI. I ask because many of my friends have cut down drinking significantly, as have I. One has given it up completely but does from time to time bemoan the absence of a good glass of burgundy, or whatever. I have no idea why they don't just have the odd glass of wine.
I get the "all or nothing" mentality but it seems illogical. My friend doesn't think that one glass will lead to 10 pints of snakebite and five bottles of a decent red.
Yes, I don’t understand the “give up entirely” brigade unless you are in danger of actual alcoholism. There is ample evidence SOME drinking is physically good for you - phenols, red wines, etc - and even if you dispute that (as some doctors do), it is indisputable that the social benefits of MODERATE drinking are significant. The Mediterranean diet specifically includes a few glasses of vino as part of the deal, it makes you happier and more social and outgoing even if there are NO physiological positives
Unless you are a problem drinker, why quit entirely?
I simply want to scale back to a more sensible intake
I find taking drink-free days (DFDs) much better and easier than the rather odd idea of just having "half a small glass of red" each day.
How to choose such days? Like @TOPPING , pairing good food with wine is wise; similarly not drinking if you are eating just reheated soup from the freezer.
Tonight, I'll eat butter chicken, made from scratch, in the traditional way. All the stages. No corners cut. I will of course imbibe wine with my dinner, and probably before it it.
After dinner, I can pretty much easily switch to rooibos tea, which allows for a decent night's sleep.
I'm clearly not part of the PB drinking party as I just did a units calculator and got to ~14-15 (best guess) or just under 20 if I, for every uncertain decision on numbers, went up.
But, for me it's been pretty straightforward since probably post-uni. Fri, Sat and Sun are candidate drinking nights. Otherwise not unless I'm out for dinner or pub (even then there's an at least 1/number present chance I'm driving) which happens relatively rarely outside Fri-Sun anyway.
Sat and Sun also match with the more involved meals (more time) and drinks will be opened during the cooking process. However, Sunday evening tends to be more of a jobbing evening, so there's less sitting with a drink compared to Friday and Saturday 'nights off'. Maybe a bottle of wine between two before/during dinner.
We did realise, on about 30 Dec, that we'd had a drink just about every day since the 22nd. 22-24 was Fri-Sun, 25th Christmas Day, 26th we had some friends over, 27th we were packing to visit family and had a drink, 28th-30th we were with family and having a drink in the evening. 31st was New Years Eve. New Years day we had other family over and had a drink again. 2 Jan onwards we got back to our normal routine, but there was a temptation for a night or two to have a drink - it had become a habit surprisingly quickly.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
I see this a lot at Bath in other subjects. Pharmacy is running at 88% female, Psychology must be over 90% female.
And yet, no outcry.
One of the NHS staffing issues is the feminisation of the workforce. On the whole its great to have both genders but those pesky women have a horrible habit of (a) wanting to have kids in their 20's and 30's and then often discover the joys of part time working...
Its not an issue and arguably a good thing that this happens, but you need to plan your workforce with this in mind.
There perhaps hasn't been as much outcry as with women in engineering, but there certainly has been concern and comment. I've commented on in academic publications. There's a whole literature discussing the case study of the feminisation of the Russian medical workforce ( https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/12573903.pdf ). When Athena SWAN activity expanded to these more traditional female-dominated disciplinary areas, we've sought to address gender equality issues from this different perspective.
I once tried to bring up the issue in pharmacy with the Universities diversity officer. Did not go down well. Wrong kind of problem.
Which was rather an indictment of the whole Athena-Swan nonsense. I could go on, but won't as I am on off to see my son.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
I see this a lot at Bath in other subjects. Pharmacy is running at 88% female, Psychology must be over 90% female.
And yet, no outcry.
One of the NHS staffing issues is the feminisation of the workforce. On the whole its great to have both genders but those pesky women have a horrible habit of (a) wanting to have kids in their 20's and 30's and then often discover the joys of part time working...
Its not an issue and arguably a good thing that this happens, but you need to plan your workforce with this in mind.
There perhaps hasn't been as much outcry as with women in engineering, but there certainly has been concern and comment. I've commented on in academic publications. There's a whole literature discussing the case study of the feminisation of the Russian medical workforce ( https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/12573903.pdf ). When Athena SWAN activity expanded to these more traditional female-dominated disciplinary areas, we've sought to address gender equality issues from this different perspective.
I once tried to bring up the issue in pharmacy with the Universities diversity officer. Did not go down well. Wrong kind of problem.
Which was rather an indictment of the whole Athena-Swan nonsense. I could go on, but won't as I am on off to see my son.
"I could go on, but won't as I am on off to see my son"
Flexible working (and considerate meeting scheduling) to fit in with family commitments being one of the pillars of the "Athena-Swan nonsense"
Now, I would like to see Athena Swan expanded to account for the needs of us PBers to have some time set aside each hour to bicker
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Surprising, I thought they might be incredibly expensive.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
I see this a lot at Bath in other subjects. Pharmacy is running at 88% female, Psychology must be over 90% female.
And yet, no outcry.
One of the NHS staffing issues is the feminisation of the workforce. On the whole its great to have both genders but those pesky women have a horrible habit of (a) wanting to have kids in their 20's and 30's and then often discover the joys of part time working...
Its not an issue and arguably a good thing that this happens, but you need to plan your workforce with this in mind.
There perhaps hasn't been as much outcry as with women in engineering, but there certainly has been concern and comment. I've commented on in academic publications. There's a whole literature discussing the case study of the feminisation of the Russian medical workforce ( https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/12573903.pdf ). When Athena SWAN activity expanded to these more traditional female-dominated disciplinary areas, we've sought to address gender equality issues from this different perspective.
I once tried to bring up the issue in pharmacy with the Universities diversity officer. Did not go down well. Wrong kind of problem.
Which was rather an indictment of the whole Athena-Swan nonsense. I could go on, but won't as I am on off to see my son.
It is a problem for diversity in other jobs though, if all the women are working as pharmacists.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Most of them probably shouldn't be on medication.
Medicating young children with behavioural problems will surely be something history looks back on us at with amazement
Also, after the age of, say, 75, does it matter if you are an alky?
Any years after that are surely a bonus, so if you do them sozzled, fair play
Only three years to go! Can’t wait!
Not you, but I wonder if elsewhere in the discussion an old PB fallacy is reappearing? Average life expectancy in the population, or a. l. at birth, or a.l. at the age of 75 or whatevs are all different.
"The increased mortality seen since the start of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has also led to a decline in period life expectancy at age 65 years compared with 2017 to 2019. In 2020 to 2022, this was estimated to be 18.3 years for males and 20.8 years for females in the UK. These estimates are approximately the same as the level of life expectancy at age 65 in 2011 to 2013 for both males and females.
Period life expectancy at age 90 years in the UK was 3.8 years for males and 4.5 years for females in 2020 to 2022."
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
I see this a lot at Bath in other subjects. Pharmacy is running at 88% female, Psychology must be over 90% female.
And yet, no outcry.
One of the NHS staffing issues is the feminisation of the workforce. On the whole its great to have both genders but those pesky women have a horrible habit of (a) wanting to have kids in their 20's and 30's and then often discover the joys of part time working...
Its not an issue and arguably a good thing that this happens, but you need to plan your workforce with this in mind.
There perhaps hasn't been as much outcry as with women in engineering, but there certainly has been concern and comment. I've commented on in academic publications. There's a whole literature discussing the case study of the feminisation of the Russian medical workforce ( https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/12573903.pdf ). When Athena SWAN activity expanded to these more traditional female-dominated disciplinary areas, we've sought to address gender equality issues from this different perspective.
I once tried to bring up the issue in pharmacy with the Universities diversity officer. Did not go down well. Wrong kind of problem.
Which was rather an indictment of the whole Athena-Swan nonsense. I could go on, but won't as I am on off to see my son.
When I was a pharmacy student, around 1960, about a third of our year was female, and when I qualified my certificate was signed by a female President of the Society, which was very unusual in those days. Now, unless I’m much mistaken the majority of the profession’s Council is female. Of course when my mother qualified in 1929 no more than 10% of the profession was female!
By the way, I initially only read the first part of the thread title and had a bit of a jolt.
Don't even need the dead bit to give people a jolt. A colleague had to explain to me never to use the name alone of an elderly colleague in the header of an email if it was something other than their demise - always qualify it up front. e.g. "Festschift in honour of Prof. Branestawm".
Punctuation is also important. I'm reminded of a message exchange with some friends many years ago, where a left-leaning friend with limited attention to messaging grammar added to a conversation about the future of the Tory party, where a right-leaning friend had suggested they should bring back Thatcherism, the following:
NEW @AlMonitor: Former US officials say Iran and its proxies have gained an upper hand over US troops in the Middle East, leaving Biden few easy options to reassert control.
“The Iranians have a strategy, and we don’t,” a former DOD official said.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex also outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
This shouldn't even need saying. If there's sexism and it's blocking women from getting the careers they want, deal with it. Otherwise, let people do whateve r f***ing job they want.
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Is this for medical reasons AAMOI. I ask because many of my friends have cut down drinking significantly, as have I. One has given it up completely but does from time to time bemoan the absence of a good glass of burgundy, or whatever. I have no idea why they don't just have the odd glass of wine.
I get the "all or nothing" mentality but it seems illogical. My friend doesn't think that one glass will lead to 10 pints of snakebite and five bottles of a decent red.
Yes, I don’t understand the “give up entirely” brigade unless you are in danger of actual alcoholism. There is ample evidence SOME drinking is physically good for you - phenols, red wines, etc - and even if you dispute that (as some doctors do), it is indisputable that the social benefits of MODERATE drinking are significant. The Mediterranean diet specifically includes a few glasses of vino as part of the deal, it makes you happier and more social and outgoing even if there are NO physiological positives
Unless you are a problem drinker, why quit entirely?
I simply want to scale back to a more sensible intake
I find taking drink-free days (DFDs) much better and easier than the rather odd idea of just having "half a small glass of red" each day.
How to choose such days? Like @TOPPING , pairing good food with wine is wise; similarly not drinking if you are eating just reheated soup from the freezer.
Tonight, I'll eat butter chicken, made from scratch, in the traditional way. All the stages. No corners cut. I will of course imbibe wine with my dinner, and probably before it it.
After dinner, I can pretty much easily switch to rooibos tea, which allows for a decent night's sleep.
I'm clearly not part of the PB drinking party as I just did a units calculator and got to ~14-15 (best guess) or just under 20 if I, for every uncertain decision on numbers, went up.
But, for me it's been pretty straightforward since probably post-uni. Fri, Sat and Sun are candidate drinking nights. Otherwise not unless I'm out for dinner or pub (even then there's an at least 1/number present chance I'm driving) which happens relatively rarely outside Fri-Sun anyway.
Sat and Sun also match with the more involved meals (more time) and drinks will be opened during the cooking process. However, Sunday evening tends to be more of a jobbing evening, so there's less sitting with a drink compared to Friday and Saturday 'nights off'. Maybe a bottle of wine between two before/during dinner.
We did realise, on about 30 Dec, that we'd had a drink just about every day since the 22nd. 22-24 was Fri-Sun, 25th Christmas Day, 26th we had some friends over, 27th we were packing to visit family and had a drink, 28th-30th we were with family and having a drink in the evening. 31st was New Years Eve. New Years day we had other family over and had a drink again. 2 Jan onwards we got back to our normal routine, but there was a temptation for a night or two to have a drink - it had become a habit surprisingly quickly.
As a New Year resolution I have given up drinking at home at least until I get back from holiday in mid March. The G&T on Friday night was happening several evenings a week, and a glass of wine with my dinner turned too easily to a bottle.
The first week or two I really did want that G&T, which I think shows it was beginning to be a bit of a habit.
Next I need to look at my session drinking and cut down by a pint or two. Problem is, like last Saturday, I am too easily swayed by that 6.5% stout and had two and a half pints of it before coming home. It was really nice though.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Because men and women are different?
Similarly, a (female) friend of mine recently came back from a railway conference making sardonic remarks about the lack of women, as if there was some conspiracy to keep women out of the railway industry, rather than it simply being the case that boys like trains.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
That is a different problem and it messes up the figures because parents and students use these as performance-enhancing drugs. It is not even that we are medicalising normal variation if these diagnostic labels are deliberately sought in order to access smart drugs and educational concessions. It is hard. A friend of mine bought his son so-called glasses to help him read better and give him an advantage at school. Where do you draw the line? Heck, even I had modafinil although long after my student years.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Because men and women are different?
Similarly, a (female) friend of mine recently came back from a railway conference making sardonic remarks about the lack of women, as if there was some conspiracy to keep women out of the railway industry, rather than it simply being the case that boys like trains.
Much of that difference appears to represent society pushing men and women into different roles because of outmoded beliefs, which means we're not necessarily getting the best engineers or the best pharmacists.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Because men and women are different?
Similarly, a (female) friend of mine recently came back from a railway conference making sardonic remarks about the lack of women, as if there was some conspiracy to keep women out of the railway industry, rather than it simply being the case that boys like trains.
Well, there did used to be. But to be serious there is another issue that feminisation can lead to lower salaries.
NEW @AlMonitor: Former US officials say Iran and its proxies have gained an upper hand over US troops in the Middle East, leaving Biden few easy options to reassert control.
“The Iranians have a strategy, and we don’t,” a former DOD official said.
When you dig down your citation is meaningless. The Iran proxies don't have a strategy over and above guerrilla attacks on US forces in the area.
You pick up any old anti- Biden sh1te and run with it.
@Anabobazina says I am a predictable, dreary and tiresome tw@t, but bloody hell, you are Olympic gold medal standard.
For the record Joe Biden is a million times the statesman your petulant-old-man-child-loser could ever dream of becoming. And that doesn't need a citation, it's common knowledge.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Why should he? Is it not OK that a lot of women and few men should be interested in make up, or a lot of men and a few women should like Hornby train sets? As long as we're not excluding the exceptions aggressively, who gives a ***k? Is a 50/50 gender split in everything a state of being with some inalienable merit?
Also, after the age of, say, 75, does it matter if you are an alky?
Any years after that are surely a bonus, so if you do them sozzled, fair play
Only three years to go! Can’t wait!
Not you, but I wonder if elsewhere in the discussion an old PB fallacy is reappearing? Average life expectancy in the population, or a. l. at birth, or a.l. at the age of 75 or whatevs are all different.
"The increased mortality seen since the start of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has also led to a decline in period life expectancy at age 65 years compared with 2017 to 2019. In 2020 to 2022, this was estimated to be 18.3 years for males and 20.8 years for females in the UK. These estimates are approximately the same as the level of life expectancy at age 65 in 2011 to 2013 for both males and females.
Period life expectancy at age 90 years in the UK was 3.8 years for males and 4.5 years for females in 2020 to 2022."
Healthy life expectancy is a different thing and probably hasn’t increased significantly.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Why should he? He saw his role as teaching the subject to those who were interested in it, not spending his time wondering why people who weren't interested in it, weren't.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
One thing I've picked up from watching more Youtube tracking the downfall of Mr Trump has been the weirdness of Usonian advert and broadcasters who consent to read them out pretending to use them themself, including medical adverts.
Otherwise sensible Youtube hosts asserting their use of products such as the Lomi electric home composter, which would use 150kWh of electricity per annum in my setting to produce a bit of soil from foodwaste apparently saves the planet. That's adding nearly 5-10% to my electricity usage including heating.
Or subscription hot chocolate at $1-2 a cup. Or an entire slew of adverts referring to Erectile Disfunction as "ED" because all Yanks are delicate blossoms, and Youtube has Mary Poppins as its auto-censor.
Really bizarre. I'll keep my eyes open for interesting stuff.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Why should he? Is it not OK that a lot of women and few men should be interested in make up, or a lot of men and a few women should like Hornby train sets? As long as we're not excluding the exceptions aggressively, who gives a ***k? Is a 50/50 gender split in everything a state of being with some inalienable merit?
You could add reality TV to that list. My wife and lots of her friends love it. I find it completely boring. I accept that many men do like it and many women dislike it; but the split is nowhere near 50/50 nor is it ever likely to be; nor should parity be necessary or even desirable.
Also, after the age of, say, 75, does it matter if you are an alky?
Any years after that are surely a bonus, so if you do them sozzled, fair play
Only three years to go! Can’t wait!
Not you, but I wonder if elsewhere in the discussion an old PB fallacy is reappearing? Average life expectancy in the population, or a. l. at birth, or a.l. at the age of 75 or whatevs are all different.
"The increased mortality seen since the start of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has also led to a decline in period life expectancy at age 65 years compared with 2017 to 2019. In 2020 to 2022, this was estimated to be 18.3 years for males and 20.8 years for females in the UK. These estimates are approximately the same as the level of life expectancy at age 65 in 2011 to 2013 for both males and females.
Period life expectancy at age 90 years in the UK was 3.8 years for males and 4.5 years for females in 2020 to 2022."
Healthy life expectancy is a different thing and probably hasn’t increased significantly.
Good point to raise. My impression is that it has, to some degree. But would need to check!
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Why should he? Is it not OK that a lot of women and few men should be interested in make up, or a lot of men and a few women should like Hornby train sets? As long as we're not excluding the exceptions aggressively, who gives a ***k? Is a 50/50 gender split in everything a state of being with some inalienable merit?
You ask a lot of questions for someone who doesn't think we should be asking a question.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Most of them probably shouldn't be on medication.
Medicating young children with behavioural problems will surely be something history looks back on us at with amazement
A personal reflection: our youngest has ADHD. We can't blame covid: it's been clear since she was a wee baby. Constantly wriggling, she was. She also has a ferocious temper, which can be a bit of a problem at school, and we worry that it might lead to an exclusion once she gets to senior school. That said, most of the time she is lovely; she's no Bart Simpson. We tried her on medication. At first it was transformational: not only could she concentrate, she was far less angry. But after a few weeks, her overall mood was worse than before (possibly because of one of the side effects, which is that it is more difficult to get to sleep). We've tried various different drugs and dosages, but none really seemed to work; or rather they worked, but at the expense of her happiness. We're probably now leaning to the view that they do more harm than good and have taken her off the meds. That said, there is a lot more going on than just ADHD. She has a dairy intolerance which we only found out about when she was 6, which surely didn't help her mood; we are constantly trying her with different vitamins (partly to get around what she misses from no dairy), and we're also going through the process of exercises for retained reflexes. (This sounds hokum, but seems to be a positive). We've also tried various therapy sessions for the anger. And in amongst all this, of course, she's growing up.
She's still a challenge, but she's in a much better place than she was a couple of years ago.
ADHD definitely exists, and ADHD meds do 'work' - but they're not without side effects, and they're certainly not the only way of dealing with the condition.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Why should he? He saw his role as teaching the subject to those who were interested in it, not spending his time wondering why people who weren't interested in it, weren't.
He would be a better teacher if he thought occasionally about why some people aren't interested in the subject (and some are).
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Why should he? Is it not OK that a lot of women and few men should be interested in make up, or a lot of men and a few women should like Hornby train sets? As long as we're not excluding the exceptions aggressively, who gives a ***k? Is a 50/50 gender split in everything a state of being with some inalienable merit?
You could add reality TV to that list. My wife and lots of her friends love it. I find it completely boring. I accept that many men do like it and many women dislike it; but the split is nowhere near 50/50 nor is it ever likely to be; nor should parity be necessary or even desirable.
Also, dancing, particularly the slosh and the alley cat.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Why should he? He saw his role as teaching the subject to those who were interested in it, not spending his time wondering why people who weren't interested in it, weren't.
He would be a better teacher if he thought occasionally about why some people aren't interested in the subject (and some are).
The best teachers are those that can enthuse the uninterested.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Its just our primary education pathway can't really deal with the outliers. We predicate most people's life chances on their willingness to consistently sit down and do the set work for ~16 years.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Have we noted the long open letter from Matt Goodwin to Rishi, via the rest of the world's population, suggesting that Rishi should campaign more or less on the single issue of offering a referendum on immigration.
I don't support this at all, and it wouldn't change my vote but it would, I think, galvanise the election.
Sandpit gave this 'relationship' as an example of unfair bias against Trump, this morning.
E Jean Carroll’s lawyer has reserved the right to file rule 11 SANCTIONS against Alina Habba for fabricating a conflict of interest between the judge and Carroll’s lawyer. 1/
Habba alleged Roberta Kaplan and Judge Kaplan had a mentor-mentee relationship at a law firm they both worked for, and that the judge failed to disclose it. Problem is, it was over 30 years ago, at a massive firm, and the two never crossed paths. https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1752376607057285468
A quiet reminder that three of the current Supreme Court Judges were Republican activists working the Gore/Bush Florida ballot dispute.
Some of their fellow activists at the time have appeared before the court in arguments. No Republican has ever raised that as an issue.
Also, after the age of, say, 75, does it matter if you are an alky?
Any years after that are surely a bonus, so if you do them sozzled, fair play
Only three years to go! Can’t wait!
Not you, but I wonder if elsewhere in the discussion an old PB fallacy is reappearing? Average life expectancy in the population, or a. l. at birth, or a.l. at the age of 75 or whatevs are all different.
"The increased mortality seen since the start of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has also led to a decline in period life expectancy at age 65 years compared with 2017 to 2019. In 2020 to 2022, this was estimated to be 18.3 years for males and 20.8 years for females in the UK. These estimates are approximately the same as the level of life expectancy at age 65 in 2011 to 2013 for both males and females.
Period life expectancy at age 90 years in the UK was 3.8 years for males and 4.5 years for females in 2020 to 2022."
Healthy life expectancy is a different thing and probably hasn’t increased significantly.
That's more important, isn't it. I don't know the data but I'd have thought healthy life expectancy was well correlated to total life expectancy. The only way it wouldn't be (that I can think of) is if medical advances are to a large extent about better managing serious conditions rather than curing or preventing them.
"The IMF has recommended strengthening carbon and property taxation, eliminating loopholes in wealth and income taxation, and reforming the pensions triple lock."
So basically none of the things that Sunak will do then.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Also, after the age of, say, 75, does it matter if you are an alky?
Any years after that are surely a bonus, so if you do them sozzled, fair play
Only three years to go! Can’t wait!
Not you, but I wonder if elsewhere in the discussion an old PB fallacy is reappearing? Average life expectancy in the population, or a. l. at birth, or a.l. at the age of 75 or whatevs are all different.
"The increased mortality seen since the start of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has also led to a decline in period life expectancy at age 65 years compared with 2017 to 2019. In 2020 to 2022, this was estimated to be 18.3 years for males and 20.8 years for females in the UK. These estimates are approximately the same as the level of life expectancy at age 65 in 2011 to 2013 for both males and females.
Period life expectancy at age 90 years in the UK was 3.8 years for males and 4.5 years for females in 2020 to 2022."
Healthy life expectancy is a different thing and probably hasn’t increased significantly.
I can't find numbers for the UK.
However global increase in Healthy Life Expectancy 2000-2019 is put at 5 years increase, which seems a lot - compared to an increase of 6 years in Life Expectancy. So not that much differences in those increases.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Most of them probably shouldn't be on medication.
That's fee for service health care for you!
Doesn't explain why the parents go along with the idea of ramming meds down kids throats.
Don't any of them worry about side effects, long term effects of being on a mental health med etc etc?
In Scotland there is something of a row brewing because of the proposal that convictions of the Sub Post Masters being quashed by legislation rather than by appeal. The Judges are not happy and it is thought to be an unacceptable interference with the division of powers as well as failing to recognise the complexities of the individual cases.
What we have in the Rwanda bill is Parliament declaring that black is white and the facts found by the Supreme Court about the safety of Rwanda are wrong, simply because Parliament says so. It is a truly dreadful idea and an appalling precedent. Sovereignty of Parliament works provided that the powers it gives are used judiciously and in a rational manner. This bill is well short of that standard.
Have we noted the long open letter from Matt Goodwin to Rishi, via the rest of the world's population, suggesting that Rishi should campaign more or less on the single issue of offering a referendum on immigration.
I don't support this at all, and it wouldn't change my vote but it would, I think, galvanise the election.
I'm watching the BBC documentary on Putin vs the West: the path to war.
It is excellent. It covers the period from 2013, when Viktor Yanukovych reneged on the EU trade deal, all the way up to the eve of the war in Ukraine over three episodes. The interviews are excellent and include, on our side, ones with David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and the various national security advisors. It covers many of the EU leaders, and also key figures in the Obama and Trump administrations.
What comes across clearly (and this is a BBC documentary) is the timidity and hesitancy of the Obama administration to avoid 'provoking' Putin, whilst Trump signed over javelin supplies to Ukraine in his first year of office - which Obama had refused - and also expelled 60+ Russian intelligence officer post Salisbury, far more than any EU country.
I hold no candle for Trump and I think he's a repugnant individual but I'm not wholly convinced a second Trump administration will be a disaster for Western security. And nor do I think he's sincere about "withdrawing" from NATO, except to get the Europeans to pay a bit more.
Have we noted the long open letter from Matt Goodwin to Rishi, via the rest of the world's population, suggesting that Rishi should campaign more or less on the single issue of offering a referendum on immigration.
I don't support this at all, and it wouldn't change my vote but it would, I think, galvanise the election.
Starmer can just say what's the point of re-electing a Tory government that has already repeatedly decided that the UK public dont want migration above say 10K and yet have failed to do anything about it in 14 years other than replace european migration with south asian migration?
Why do you hang on to that utter (k)nob's every last word?
Is he wrong?
We need another 10 million people to pay off the debt run up by boomers. But first we need to convince millennials and gen-xers that it will be a thoroughly good thing. It's going quite well, I'd say.
From the actual source. The ONS
“Over the 15 years between mid-2021 and mid-2036, the UK population is projected to grow by 6.6 million people.
This includes 541,000 more births than deaths and international net migration of 6.1 million people.”
Utter insanity. Any party that promises to stop this, and does it, will win big. That’s not the Tories, they cannot be trusted
We may have to start our own party
I've never got the argument that "students" should drop out of the migration figures because they are only here for a temporary course: firstly, if they were, they'd be netted out of the migration figures anyway and, secondly, it's quite clear that the majority stay so they need to be.
The majority do not stay. What tosh. Why come here and post nonsense?
given they have no records of in or out how do you work that one out. Shedloads bringing their families with them and guaranteed they are not leaving given the huge population increases
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Most of them probably shouldn't be on medication.
Medicating young children with behavioural problems will surely be something history looks back on us at with amazement
A personal reflection: our youngest has ADHD. We can't blame covid: it's been clear since she was a wee baby. Constantly wriggling, she was. She also has a ferocious temper, which can be a bit of a problem at school, and we worry that it might lead to an exclusion once she gets to senior school. That said, most of the time she is lovely; she's no Bart Simpson. We tried her on medication. At first it was transformational: not only could she concentrate, she was far less angry. But after a few weeks, her overall mood was worse than before (possibly because of one of the side effects, which is that it is more difficult to get to sleep). We've tried various different drugs and dosages, but none really seemed to work; or rather they worked, but at the expense of her happiness. We're probably now leaning to the view that they do more harm than good and have taken her off the meds. That said, there is a lot more going on than just ADHD. She has a dairy intolerance which we only found out about when she was 6, which surely didn't help her mood; we are constantly trying her with different vitamins (partly to get around what she misses from no dairy), and we're also going through the process of exercises for retained reflexes. (This sounds hokum, but seems to be a positive). We've also tried various therapy sessions for the anger. And in amongst all this, of course, she's growing up.
She's still a challenge, but she's in a much better place than she was a couple of years ago.
ADHD definitely exists, and ADHD meds do 'work' - but they're not without side effects, and they're certainly not the only way of dealing with the condition.
Yes, I have a nephew with it and medication certainly helps.
Many kids with milder ADHD find out door pursuits, nature, dogs and music calming. Keep them off the gadgets after tea too. It all sounds a bit Baden-Powell but it works.
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
There was a news report on the BBC a couple of weeks back about how girls were outperforming boys at school in all subjects and at all years (apart from maths at 16 and 18). It was said with a 'hooray, isn't this good news?' tone of voice.' I amused myself by considering how cross the reporting would have been had the reverse been the case.
Yes, presumably one sex always outperforms the other at any given subject in any given year? i.e. they are never exactly identical. I met an engineering professor in Bristol once who told me that there would never be as many women as men on his courses because for the most part women weren't interested in the topic. Said when he did get female applicants he welcomed them and indeed encouraged them; but in his view there would never be critical mass of applicants to get anywhere near parity, and that was fine, and is just the way of the world.
Why is it the way of the world that women aren't interested in the topic (or men in pharmacy)? That's what he should have been asking.
Because men and women are different?
Similarly, a (female) friend of mine recently came back from a railway conference making sardonic remarks about the lack of women, as if there was some conspiracy to keep women out of the railway industry, rather than it simply being the case that boys like trains.
Much of that difference appears to represent society pushing men and women into different roles because of outmoded beliefs, which means we're not necessarily getting the best engineers or the best pharmacists.
And there is at least some evidence that gender stereotypes are a factor- you get more girls choosing to do physics and excelling at it in all girls schools than in mixed schools. That points to something social rather than intrinsic preferences.
(Fun fact: the girls' comprehensive in Romford has a working miniature ride-on railway, maintained by pupils. Flip knows where the original funding came from.)
Have we noted the long open letter from Matt Goodwin to Rishi, via the rest of the world's population, suggesting that Rishi should campaign more or less on the single issue of offering a referendum on immigration.
I don't support this at all, and it wouldn't change my vote but it would, I think, galvanise the election.
Wouldn’t the obvious reply be to note that with a majority of 80, the Tories should have been able to do whatever they wanted up to and including over-riding any Lords objections, but we so disorganised and focused on in-fighting that they did very little for five years?
Being divided and incompetent is what will lose them the election.
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Most of them probably shouldn't be on medication.
That's fee for service health care for you!
Doesn't explain why the parents go along with the idea of ramming meds down kids throats.
Don't any of them worry about side effects, long term effects of being on a mental health med etc etc?
It is better for them to say that their child has a medically diagnosed condition than to have to admit to being shit parents.
"The IMF has recommended strengthening carbon and property taxation, eliminating loopholes in wealth and income taxation, and reforming the pensions triple lock."
So basically none of the things that Sunak will do then.
As with Ken Clarke's speech yesterday, it's a good reminder of how detached from reality the government has got. (I wish someone would be more honest, but how could they get elected?)
I think my son is the only boy in his year who is not on ADHD medication. Sadly, though, this is not a new thing. Doctors in the US are incredibly free with Adderell, Ritalin and the like.
Most of them probably shouldn't be on medication.
Medicating young children with behavioural problems will surely be something history looks back on us at with amazement
A personal reflection: our youngest has ADHD. We can't blame covid: it's been clear since she was a wee baby. Constantly wriggling, she was. She also has a ferocious temper, which can be a bit of a problem at school, and we worry that it might lead to an exclusion once she gets to senior school. That said, most of the time she is lovely; she's no Bart Simpson. We tried her on medication. At first it was transformational: not only could she concentrate, she was far less angry. But after a few weeks, her overall mood was worse than before (possibly because of one of the side effects, which is that it is more difficult to get to sleep). We've tried various different drugs and dosages, but none really seemed to work; or rather they worked, but at the expense of her happiness. We're probably now leaning to the view that they do more harm than good and have taken her off the meds. That said, there is a lot more going on than just ADHD. She has a dairy intolerance which we only found out about when she was 6, which surely didn't help her mood; we are constantly trying her with different vitamins (partly to get around what she misses from no dairy), and we're also going through the process of exercises for retained reflexes. (This sounds hokum, but seems to be a positive). We've also tried various therapy sessions for the anger. And in amongst all this, of course, she's growing up.
She's still a challenge, but she's in a much better place than she was a couple of years ago.
ADHD definitely exists, and ADHD meds do 'work' - but they're not without side effects, and they're certainly not the only way of dealing with the condition.
Yes, I have a nephew with it and medication certainly helps.
Many kids with milder ADHD find out door pursuits, nature, dogs and music calming. Keep them off the gadgets after tea too. It all sounds a bit Baden-Powell but it works.
Is this the point in the evening where i start ranting that when we were kids we were given a pack of sandwiches and told to go to the local park until tea time. Hours of footy, biking, building dens, gathering conkers, trying not to fall into the lake etc etc. Fresh air, running around, messing about with other kids. It aint rocket science.
I haven't had a drink for 18 months. It does make life very boring. But you sleep better.
Think I would rather have a bit less sleep now and again.
Not drinking is like not eating bacon. You live longer, but there’s no point because you don’t get booze or bacon, and you must put up with that for ages.
Comments
I don't want to breach any confidences but I think I recognise one of them.
How to choose such days? Like @TOPPING , pairing good food with wine is wise; similarly not drinking if you are eating just reheated soup from the freezer.
Tonight, I'll eat butter chicken, made from scratch, in the traditional way. All the stages. No corners cut. I will of course imbibe wine with my dinner, and probably before it it.
After dinner, I can pretty much easily switch to rooibos tea, which allows for a decent night's sleep.
Idiotic Tory MPs lack intelligence, ideology and purpose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG6xjfOZ-Q
Is he right that Boris's Cabinet was the worst in history? He does think Rishi might turn it round btw.
I’ll claim my Godwin award now.
I don't smoke or take drugs. I do take a lot of exercise, and have cut right down on red meat, and cut out sausages.
@David_Goodhart
Just seen 148 people graduating (including masters and doctorates) from City University in speech and language therapy. Just two were young men. If this was engineering and the male/female ratio was anything like that there would be outrage."
https://twitter.com/David_Goodhart/status/1752292139818434650
It's not those seeking asylum who are stringing the process out. It's the UK government who haven't resourced the process sufficiently, leading to long backlogs.
Your position seems to be based on Daily Mail-esque fantasies about asylum seekers. For most, the goal is to obtain asylum: they follow the rules we set them, and they want a fast answer to their application.
If the concern is around people illegally working in the UK when they are not allowed to, then we should seek solutions focused on that. Most people illegally working in the UK when they are not allowed to just enter the UK legally and overstay. They're not asylum seekers. Target those people with better enforcement or, as often suggested here, hit the employers of such people.
Is it supposed to be a deterrent or a safe country? Possible to be both, I suppose. But a bit of a stretch.
We need to build more houses and infrastructure (whether legal migration/asylum/illegals) and process the vast majority of claims, including appeals in under 3 months. Then just get on with it and worry about fixing the more important things.
"Waiting for Survation" is a fun meme, however, starting this week we are stepping up the publication of our regular online omnibus polling & will be producing Westminster voting trackers every other week, on Fridays, ramping up to weekly closer to the general election.
If you'd like to be involved in our UK omnibus, with fieldwork for questions launching Tuesdays with results returned by Thursday, get in touch: researchteam@survation.com
https://x.com/survation/status/1752277934809796703?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
And yet, no outcry.
One of the NHS staffing issues is the feminisation of the workforce. On the whole its great to have both genders but those pesky women have a horrible habit of (a) wanting to have kids in their 20's and 30's and then often discover the joys of part time working...
Its not an issue and arguably a good thing that this happens, but you need to plan your workforce with this in mind.
@Smyth_Chris
One in nine children now has a disability after a post-pandemic surge driven by mental health conditions such as ADHD
Analysis of DWP figures show some really striking trends 1/
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1751985359997550953
But, for me it's been pretty straightforward since probably post-uni. Fri, Sat and Sun are candidate drinking nights. Otherwise not unless I'm out for dinner or pub (even then there's an at least 1/number present chance I'm driving) which happens relatively rarely outside Fri-Sun anyway.
Sat and Sun also match with the more involved meals (more time) and drinks will be opened during the cooking process. However, Sunday evening tends to be more of a jobbing evening, so there's less sitting with a drink compared to Friday and Saturday 'nights off'. Maybe a bottle of wine between two before/during dinner.
We did realise, on about 30 Dec, that we'd had a drink just about every day since the 22nd. 22-24 was Fri-Sun, 25th Christmas Day, 26th we had some friends over, 27th we were packing to visit family and had a drink, 28th-30th we were with family and having a drink in the evening. 31st was New Years Eve. New Years day we had other family over and had a drink again. 2 Jan onwards we got back to our normal routine, but there was a temptation for a night or two to have a drink - it had become a habit surprisingly quickly.
Which was rather an indictment of the whole Athena-Swan nonsense. I could go on, but won't as I am on off to see my son.
Flexible working (and considerate meeting scheduling) to fit in with family commitments being one of the pillars of the "Athena-Swan nonsense"
Now, I would like to see Athena Swan expanded to account for the needs of us PBers to have some time set aside each hour to bicker
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2020to2022#life-expectancy-at-older-ages
"The increased mortality seen since the start of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has also led to a decline in period life expectancy at age 65 years compared with 2017 to 2019. In 2020 to 2022, this was estimated to be 18.3 years for males and 20.8 years for females in the UK. These estimates are approximately the same as the level of life expectancy at age 65 in 2011 to 2013 for both males and females.
Period life expectancy at age 90 years in the UK was 3.8 years for males and 4.5 years for females in 2020 to 2022."
Of course when my mother qualified in 1929 no more than 10% of the profession was female!
"Thatcher is dead right"
rather than the intended
"Thatcher is dead, right?"
which led to some brief confusion
NEW @AlMonitor: Former US officials say Iran and its proxies have gained an upper hand over US troops in the Middle East, leaving Biden few easy options to reassert control.
“The Iranians have a strategy, and we don’t,” a former DOD official said.
The first week or two I really did want that G&T, which I think shows it was beginning to be a bit of a habit.
Next I need to look at my session drinking and cut down by a pint or two. Problem is, like last Saturday, I am too easily swayed by that 6.5% stout and had two and a half pints of it before coming home. It was really nice though.
Just saying….
Always a symptom you can spot.
Similarly, a (female) friend of mine recently came back from a railway conference making sardonic remarks about the lack of women, as if there was some conspiracy to keep women out of the railway industry, rather than it simply being the case that boys like trains.
You pick up any old anti- Biden sh1te and run with it.
@Anabobazina says I am a predictable, dreary and tiresome tw@t, but bloody hell, you are Olympic gold medal standard.
For the record Joe Biden is a million times the statesman your petulant-old-man-child-loser could ever dream of becoming. And that doesn't need a citation, it's common knowledge.
Otherwise sensible Youtube hosts asserting their use of products such as the Lomi electric home composter, which would use 150kWh of electricity per annum in my setting to produce a bit of soil from foodwaste apparently saves the planet. That's adding nearly 5-10% to my electricity usage including heating.
Or subscription hot chocolate at $1-2 a cup. Or an entire slew of adverts referring to Erectile Disfunction as "ED" because all Yanks are delicate blossoms, and Youtube has Mary Poppins as its auto-censor.
Really bizarre. I'll keep my eyes open for interesting stuff.
What a completely screwed-up country.
We tried her on medication. At first it was transformational: not only could she concentrate, she was far less angry. But after a few weeks, her overall mood was worse than before (possibly because of one of the side effects, which is that it is more difficult to get to sleep). We've tried various different drugs and dosages, but none really seemed to work; or rather they worked, but at the expense of her happiness. We're probably now leaning to the view that they do more harm than good and have taken her off the meds.
That said, there is a lot more going on than just ADHD. She has a dairy intolerance which we only found out about when she was 6, which surely didn't help her mood; we are constantly trying her with different vitamins (partly to get around what she misses from no dairy), and we're also going through the process of exercises for retained reflexes. (This sounds hokum, but seems to be a positive). We've also tried various therapy sessions for the anger. And in amongst all this, of course, she's growing up.
She's still a challenge, but she's in a much better place than she was a couple of years ago.
ADHD definitely exists, and ADHD meds do 'work' - but they're not without side effects, and they're certainly not the only way of dealing with the condition.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/09/sackler-trust-gave-more-than-14m-to-uk-public-bodies-in-2020
I don't support this at all, and it wouldn't change my vote but it would, I think, galvanise the election.
https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/an-open-letter-to-rishi-sunak
E Jean Carroll’s lawyer has reserved the right to file rule 11 SANCTIONS against Alina Habba for fabricating a conflict of interest between the judge and Carroll’s lawyer. 1/
Habba alleged Roberta Kaplan and Judge Kaplan had a mentor-mentee relationship at a law firm they both worked for, and that the judge failed to disclose it. Problem is, it was over 30 years ago, at a massive firm, and the two never crossed paths.
https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1752376607057285468
A quiet reminder that three of the current Supreme Court Judges were Republican activists working the Gore/Bush Florida ballot dispute.
Some of their fellow activists at the time have appeared before the court in arguments. No Republican has ever raised that as an issue.
So basically none of the things that Sunak will do then.
However global increase in Healthy Life Expectancy 2000-2019 is put at 5 years increase, which seems a lot - compared to an increase of 6 years in Life Expectancy. So not that much differences in those increases.
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-life-expectancy-and-healthy-life-expectancy
Q: Should Trump be allowed on the ballot?
Biden: "That's fine."
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1752367127841894835
Don't any of them worry about side effects, long term effects of being on a mental health med etc etc?
In Scotland there is something of a row brewing because of the proposal that convictions of the Sub Post Masters being quashed by legislation rather than by appeal. The Judges are not happy and it is thought to be an unacceptable interference with the division of powers as well as failing to recognise the complexities of the individual cases.
What we have in the Rwanda bill is Parliament declaring that black is white and the facts found by the Supreme Court about the safety of Rwanda are wrong, simply because Parliament says so. It is a truly dreadful idea and an appalling precedent. Sovereignty of Parliament works provided that the powers it gives are used judiciously and in a rational manner. This bill is well short of that standard.
Brenda from Bristol would not approve, Matt.
It is excellent. It covers the period from 2013, when Viktor Yanukovych reneged on the EU trade deal, all the way up to the eve of the war in Ukraine over three episodes. The interviews are excellent and include, on our side, ones with David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and the various national security advisors. It covers many of the EU leaders, and also key figures in the Obama and Trump administrations.
What comes across clearly (and this is a BBC documentary) is the timidity and hesitancy of the Obama administration to avoid 'provoking' Putin, whilst Trump signed over javelin supplies to Ukraine in his first year of office - which Obama had refused - and also expelled 60+ Russian intelligence officer post Salisbury, far more than any EU country.
I hold no candle for Trump and I think he's a repugnant individual but I'm not wholly convinced a second Trump administration will be a disaster for Western security. And nor do I think he's sincere about "withdrawing" from NATO, except to get the Europeans to pay a bit more.
Many kids with milder ADHD find out door pursuits, nature, dogs and music calming. Keep them off the gadgets after tea too. It all sounds a bit Baden-Powell but it works.
Labour lead the Conservatives by 28% in Wales, a new high.
Wales Westminster VI (24-26 January):
Labour 48% (+1)
Conservatives 20% (-2)
Reform 12% (+2)
Plaid Cymru 11% (–)
Liberal Democrat 4% (-2)
Green 4% (+1)
Other 1% (+1)
Changes +/- 10-11 December
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1752376128608837741
(Fun fact: the girls' comprehensive in Romford has a working miniature ride-on railway, maintained by pupils. Flip knows where the original funding came from.)
Being divided and incompetent is what will lose them the election.