JUST IN: former Post Office chairman, Henry Staunton, has just released a statement standing by his accusations over the #postoffice. He describes “an astonishing series of claims” made by the Business Secretary.
This mess is exactly why I've thought for a while that Badenoch is too short for next leader. She's a bit Graeme Souness in that she can start a fight in a room with just a mirror in it. Which is a good thing if you want some drama and people both you and she doesn't like put in their place.
But eventually probably makes you too many enemies, or leaves you in a position whereby you start a scrap with the wrong person and come a cropper.
Will it be May or will it be October? I think Mr Sunak can surprise us all and go for mid-August or December 25. Don't rule out October 31 either. Mr Sunak is nothing if not a blue-sky thinker...
Christmas would work if we assume younger people are more likely to travel to older relatives than the other way round.
The whole British electoral thing of will they won’t they election timings is ridiculous.
I think it’s time for the CIA to intervene. “We have credible intelligence from very close to the UK leadership that the decision has been made to call an election in May. This is supported by satellite images showing Conservative battalions massing in marginal constituencies in electoral formations.”
Even in the wake of last week’s disastrous byelections, [Sunak’s] leadership seems secure, for the simple reason that nobody vying for the crown wants to seize it this side of the general election.
A good defence relies on making hard choices. Dig in against the Liberal Democrats in the “blue wall”, and stand accused of abandoning the new voters won over by Boris Johnson in 2019. Focus on boxing in the threat of Reform UK, and risk losing more voters to Labour and the Lib Dems, the parties actually positioned to take Conservative seats.
Then there’s timing….there are good reasons why a May election would suit the party. Coinciding with the local elections would not only probably save hundreds of Tory councillors, but also ensure that even activists unenthused by Sunak would be out anyway, fighting for their own seats.
[But Tories] are really gearing up for the almighty row that awaits if and when the Conservatives return to opposition. At its heart will be two related questions. First: how did the Tories manage to go from a historic landslide to what is shaping up to be a historic rout in a single parliament? Second: how did the party manage to spend nearly 15 years in office without managing to do much, beyond Brexit, to move the country in a more conservative direction?
Sunak does not really have a place in that battle. Not merely because it will only take place after an election defeat, but because he doesn’t have an ideological dog in the fight. There isn’t a Sunakism…the prime minister’s Treasury-minded managerialism will depart with him.
Until then, he has the thankless task of trying to salvage the best result possible in an extremely difficult election – a task that depends on forcing hard choices on a party that has proved congenitally incapable of confronting them. Again, no wonder there’s fresh talk of an election in May.
Interesting. Looks like a general election in May really could be in the works.
The country certainly needs it.
I have been saying 2 May on here all year and I am sticking with it 👍
My instinct has always been that he'll go as long as possible (October, November or maybe even December) because waiting for something to turn up is what politicians tend to do when they're facing certain defeat (its what Major and Brown did) but perhaps Rishi will decide to get it over and done with.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It does seem a daft hoo-haa about office snacks FFS. Who cares? If you want a good dinner, go out to dinner.
I care greatly about the arrogance of someone else who has an ideology who presumes to pick on my behalf what I can and can't eat.
Remind me never to invite you to dinner. You'd probably complain about the pheasant casserole just because I chose it and you didn't. I'd want to save you from that trauma.
Can I take Casino's place? Pheasant casserole sounds great!
With equally vegan red wine, celeriac, shallots and carrots, served with mash? Sure.
Even in the wake of last week’s disastrous byelections, [Sunak’s] leadership seems secure, for the simple reason that nobody vying for the crown wants to seize it this side of the general election.
A good defence relies on making hard choices. Dig in against the Liberal Democrats in the “blue wall”, and stand accused of abandoning the new voters won over by Boris Johnson in 2019. Focus on boxing in the threat of Reform UK, and risk losing more voters to Labour and the Lib Dems, the parties actually positioned to take Conservative seats.
Then there’s timing….there are good reasons why a May election would suit the party. Coinciding with the local elections would not only probably save hundreds of Tory councillors, but also ensure that even activists unenthused by Sunak would be out anyway, fighting for their own seats.
[But Tories] are really gearing up for the almighty row that awaits if and when the Conservatives return to opposition. At its heart will be two related questions. First: how did the Tories manage to go from a historic landslide to what is shaping up to be a historic rout in a single parliament? Second: how did the party manage to spend nearly 15 years in office without managing to do much, beyond Brexit, to move the country in a more conservative direction?
Sunak does not really have a place in that battle. Not merely because it will only take place after an election defeat, but because he doesn’t have an ideological dog in the fight. There isn’t a Sunakism…the prime minister’s Treasury-minded managerialism will depart with him.
Until then, he has the thankless task of trying to salvage the best result possible in an extremely difficult election – a task that depends on forcing hard choices on a party that has proved congenitally incapable of confronting them. Again, no wonder there’s fresh talk of an election in May.
Interesting. Looks like a general election in May really could be in the works.
The country certainly needs it.
Was thinking about this today, what does Sunny Boy have to lose? For three months of the difference between May and October, Parliament is in recess anyway. Then it’s conference, which will be a nightmare.
Go in May and he could be sat on a beach earning ten per cent.
Can't wait for the FBI helicopters hovering over the Houses of Parliament
I wonder how much money the average person has spent on smartphones since they were introduced in 2007.
I can answer that one for Apple iPhones (not Smartphones) which were the thing introduced in 2007, along with more gullible customers. 'Smartphones' in concept were probably the Nokia Communicator from 1996.
For iPhones, the site below have the price every year for each model from 2007 to 2021, and an average price iPhone each year added up to £9133 by 2021, so probably ~£11-12000 by 2024. That's ignoring inflation and interest. https://repairoutlet.co.uk/blogs/news/the-changing-costs-of-apple-iphones
Do you know how much money Google makes in advertising from each user every year?
$300.
Think about that for a second.
Yep - sounds about right, subject to:
1 - The revenue comes from the advertiser, not the customer. 2 - The definition of a user sounds quite elastic.
I wonder how much money the average person has spent on smartphones since they were introduced in 2007.
I can answer that one for Apple iPhones (not Smartphones) which were the thing introduced in 2007, along with more gullible customers. 'Smartphones' in concept were probably the Nokia Communicator from 1996.
For iPhones, the site below have the price every year for each model from 2007 to 2021, and an average price iPhone each year added up to £9133 by 2021, so probably ~£11-12000 by 2024. That's ignoring inflation and interest. https://repairoutlet.co.uk/blogs/news/the-changing-costs-of-apple-iphones
Do you know how much money Google makes in advertising from each user every year?
$300.
Think about that for a second.
Yep - sounds about right, subject to:
1 - The revenue comes from the advertiser, not the customer. 2 - The definition of a user sounds quite elastic.
I wonder how much money the average person has spent on smartphones since they were introduced in 2007.
I can answer that one for Apple iPhones (not Smartphones) which were the thing introduced in 2007, along with more gullible customers. 'Smartphones' in concept were probably the Nokia Communicator from 1996.
For iPhones, the site below have the price every year for each model from 2007 to 2021, and an average price iPhone each year added up to £9133 by 2021, so probably ~£11-12000 by 2024. That's ignoring inflation and interest. https://repairoutlet.co.uk/blogs/news/the-changing-costs-of-apple-iphones
I've just added it up for my own smartphones. I use Android - a series of 3 HTCs followed by an LG (ugh), a couple of Google Nexus, then 3 Google Pixels. Total = £4586
By comparison, in the same time period I spent: £2,971 on mobile voice/data/roaming £6,180 on computers £208k on rent... (sigh)
I would love to have a dinner party with some of you folks, we'd probably start WW3.
I don’t reckon we would. Most PBers are fine upstanding gentlemen (and ladies) I reckon, very nice IRL whatever their politics. I reckon even Pagan - the internet’s angriest man - is a pussy cat after a couple of glasses of decent claret.
The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.
1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public? 2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it. 3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.
On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.
It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.
It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.
Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.
I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.
He's certainly not taking it lying down...
This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.
Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...
Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".
Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive
So how would you have responded in her position?
And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?
I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.
Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.
I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.
*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.
IANAL but is a non-exec chair really entitled to all the protections of an employee? The shareholder should be able to dismiss at will.
Even in the wake of last week’s disastrous byelections, [Sunak’s] leadership seems secure, for the simple reason that nobody vying for the crown wants to seize it this side of the general election.
A good defence relies on making hard choices. Dig in against the Liberal Democrats in the “blue wall”, and stand accused of abandoning the new voters won over by Boris Johnson in 2019. Focus on boxing in the threat of Reform UK, and risk losing more voters to Labour and the Lib Dems, the parties actually positioned to take Conservative seats.
Then there’s timing….there are good reasons why a May election would suit the party. Coinciding with the local elections would not only probably save hundreds of Tory councillors, but also ensure that even activists unenthused by Sunak would be out anyway, fighting for their own seats.
[But Tories] are really gearing up for the almighty row that awaits if and when the Conservatives return to opposition. At its heart will be two related questions. First: how did the Tories manage to go from a historic landslide to what is shaping up to be a historic rout in a single parliament? Second: how did the party manage to spend nearly 15 years in office without managing to do much, beyond Brexit, to move the country in a more conservative direction?
Sunak does not really have a place in that battle. Not merely because it will only take place after an election defeat, but because he doesn’t have an ideological dog in the fight. There isn’t a Sunakism…the prime minister’s Treasury-minded managerialism will depart with him.
Until then, he has the thankless task of trying to salvage the best result possible in an extremely difficult election – a task that depends on forcing hard choices on a party that has proved congenitally incapable of confronting them. Again, no wonder there’s fresh talk of an election in May.
Interesting. Looks like a general election in May really could be in the works.
The country certainly needs it.
I have been saying 2 May on here all year and I am sticking with it 👍
My instinct has always been that he'll go as long as possible (October, November or maybe even December) because waiting for something to turn up is what politicians tend to do when they're facing certain defeat (its what Major and Brown did) but perhaps Rishi will decide to get it over and done with.
We can only hope.
Does he give any real impression of wanting to be PM much longer? I reckon he might have his eye on a clean break, and a life in sunny Cali with his tech bros.
Thought I'd have a quick look at the May round of local elections.
There are all-up elections in Conservative-controlled Dudley and in the Labour run authorities of North Tyneside and Rotherham. The Conservatives have a majority of 12 (42-30) but there are new boundaries.
Solihull and Walsall are the two Met boroughs with third-up elections this year. The Conservatives have 29 of the 51 Councillors in Solihull but there are 17 seats up for grabs. Even so, it's hard to see the party being dislodged while Walsall is the new Conservative heartland. Arguably one of the best results for the Tories last year, there's no chance of Labour and the Indpendents breaking the Conservative dominance.
On to the Unitaries and Dorset has its first all-up election since 2019 - the Conservatives have 43 seats and a majority of four but it's hard to see that being sustained. Could the LDs take control - seems a stretch but NOC with the LDs largest party looks feasible.
At District Council level, a number of councils have all-up elections this year. Those with a current Conservative majority facing elections are Basildon, Epping Forest, Fareham, Gloucester, Harlow, Havant, Nuneaton & Bedworth and Redditch. May well be worth a more detailed look at some of these in the next month of two.
Adur is electing half its councillors and perhaps Labour will be able to continue its strong growth on the south coast and rob the Tories of their majority.
The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.
1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public? 2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it. 3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.
On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.
It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.
It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.
Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.
I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.
He's certainly not taking it lying down...
This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.
Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...
Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".
Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive
So how would you have responded in her position?
And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?
I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.
Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.
I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.
*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.
What I would not do is make broad and public claims of dishonesty and misconduct against a former colleague whom I dismissed, that I would struggle to stand up, and which are slam dunks for a defamation suit if I don't.
That's because I'm not as stupid as Badenoch. None of this is of any interest except this is a betting site and Badenoch is heir apparent for next Tory leader
We will see. However your determination to believe Badenoch is stupid feels agenda driven. Why?
Maybe can overdo stupid. Badenoch is extraordinarily aggressive however and doesn't seem to stop to think. Whatever. It's noteworthy none of her minister colleagues have rallied to her side, which might suggest she'll struggle to get past the MP vote and on the shortlist for next leader.
I agree with Frank, I think. It’s a game of which one is lying. And minister can’t lie to House of Commons. If you look at it objectively, without bias, Staunton is the likely liar.
What officially was Henry Staunton sacked for? That’s the first question to answer.
If not for bullying accusations against him, then what? Did Badenoch in Trumpesque doubling down today, gave a reason for his sacking to the commons, she hadn’t given him in her sacking conversation with him? Hard to believe, as lying to the commons today would be her political career hit below waterline.
Correct me where wrong, this Henry Staunton, through what sounds like a legal team, is trying to claim “Staunton had never been made aware Of bullying allegations against him and that they were certainly not raised by the secretary of state at any stage, and certainly not during the conversation which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal.” So easy to answer. The transcript of that sacking meeting, Libdems, Labour and Keegan the current education secretary are all urging Badenoch to publish, will clear up the question if she told him about the bullying in that meeting or not, because that that can’t possibly be missing from the minute of that meeting, as that’s exactly what the meeting was all about, I’m sacking you for this reason.
I think I am doubting Staunton more in this game of “nail the liar to the wall”, if he is sacked for bullying accusations against him, but was never told that, then what different reason was he given for his sacking, for he doesn’t sound in the dark about why he was sacked, does he, he isn’t acting baffled that he accepted a “reasonless sacking” and now asking what for. He must have been told a reason by SoS, and he’s not coming clean about what that was, is he?
Will it be May or will it be October? I think Mr Sunak can surprise us all and go for mid-August or December 25. Don't rule out October 31 either. Mr Sunak is nothing if not a blue-sky thinker...
Christmas would work if we assume younger people are more likely to travel to older relatives than the other way round.
The whole British electoral thing of will they won’t they election timings is ridiculous.
I think it’s time for the CIA to intervene. “We have credible intelligence from very close to the UK leadership that the decision has been made to call an election in May. This is supported by satellite images showing Conservative battalions massing in marginal constituencies in electoral formations.”
Yes, ridiculous. Has anyone considered legislation to introduce fixed-term parliaments? Could work.
I would love to have a dinner party with some of you folks, we'd probably start WW3.
I don’t reckon we would. Most PBers are fine upstanding gentlemen (and ladies) I reckon, very nice IRL whatever their politics. I reckon even Pagan - the internet’s angriest man - is a pussy cat after a couple of glasses of decent claret.
"He's a font of misplaced rage. Name your cliché; mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever. Now he's so angry moments of levity actually cause him pain; gives him headaches. Happiness, for that gentleman, hurts."
Even in the wake of last week’s disastrous byelections, [Sunak’s] leadership seems secure, for the simple reason that nobody vying for the crown wants to seize it this side of the general election.
A good defence relies on making hard choices. Dig in against the Liberal Democrats in the “blue wall”, and stand accused of abandoning the new voters won over by Boris Johnson in 2019. Focus on boxing in the threat of Reform UK, and risk losing more voters to Labour and the Lib Dems, the parties actually positioned to take Conservative seats.
Then there’s timing….there are good reasons why a May election would suit the party. Coinciding with the local elections would not only probably save hundreds of Tory councillors, but also ensure that even activists unenthused by Sunak would be out anyway, fighting for their own seats.
[But Tories] are really gearing up for the almighty row that awaits if and when the Conservatives return to opposition. At its heart will be two related questions. First: how did the Tories manage to go from a historic landslide to what is shaping up to be a historic rout in a single parliament? Second: how did the party manage to spend nearly 15 years in office without managing to do much, beyond Brexit, to move the country in a more conservative direction?
Sunak does not really have a place in that battle. Not merely because it will only take place after an election defeat, but because he doesn’t have an ideological dog in the fight. There isn’t a Sunakism…the prime minister’s Treasury-minded managerialism will depart with him.
Until then, he has the thankless task of trying to salvage the best result possible in an extremely difficult election – a task that depends on forcing hard choices on a party that has proved congenitally incapable of confronting them. Again, no wonder there’s fresh talk of an election in May.
Interesting. Looks like a general election in May really could be in the works.
The country certainly needs it.
Was thinking about this today, what does Sunny Boy have to lose? For three months of the difference between May and October, Parliament is in recess anyway. Then it’s conference, which will be a nightmare.
Go in May and he could be sat on a beach earning ten per cent.
The vast quantity of leaflets that the Conservatives have pushed through our letterbox recently is much more what you'd expect for a May election than a November one.
Admittedly, it doesn't help that they don't seem to understand their own boundary changes and so we're currently getting leaflets for two constituencies at once.
We've started getting leaflets - and from more than one party - for the constituency next door, despite the fact that the boundaries here aren't changing. I don't know what the idiots are playing at.
Curiously, the latest Tory propaganda - which came in the form of a faux magazine with a title something like "You and Your Family" (that's probably not even close, but anyway,) failed to mention the Conservative Party at all on the front cover, but did advertise the amazingness of Rishi. Make of that what you will.
The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.
1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public? 2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it. 3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.
On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.
It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.
It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.
Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.
I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.
He's certainly not taking it lying down...
This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.
Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...
Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".
Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive
So how would you have responded in her position?
And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?
I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.
Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.
I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.
*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.
What I would not do is make broad and public claims of dishonesty and misconduct against a former colleague whom I dismissed, that I would struggle to stand up, and which are slam dunks for a defamation suit if I don't.
That's because I'm not as stupid as Badenoch. None of this is of any interest except this is a betting site and Badenoch is heir apparent for next Tory leader
We will see. However your determination to believe Badenoch is stupid feels agenda driven. Why?
Maybe can overdo stupid. Badenoch is extraordinarily aggressive however and doesn't seem to stop to think. Whatever. It's noteworthy none of her minister colleagues have rallied to her side, which might suggest she'll struggle to get past the MP vote and on the shortlist for next leader.
I agree with Frank, I think. It’s a game of which one is lying. And minister can’t lie to House of Commons. If you look at it objectively, without bias, Staunton is the likely liar.
What officially was Henry Staunton sacked for? That’s the first question to answer.
If not for bullying accusations against him, then what? Did Badenoch in Trumpesque doubling down today, gave a reason for his sacking to the commons, she hadn’t given him in her sacking conversation with him? Hard to believe, as lying to the commons today would be her political career hit below waterline.
Correct me where wrong, this Henry Staunton, through what sounds like a legal team, is trying to claim “Staunton had never been made aware Of bullying allegations against him and that they were certainly not raised by the secretary of state at any stage, and certainly not during the conversation which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal.” So easy to answer. The transcript of that sacking meeting, Libdems, Labour and Keegan the current education secretary are all urging Badenoch to publish, will clear up the question if she told him about the bullying in that meeting or not, because that that can’t possibly be missing from the minute of that meeting, as that’s exactly what the meeting was all about, I’m sacking you for this reason.
I think I am doubting Staunton more in this game of “nail the liar to the wall”, if he is sacked for bullying accusations against him, but was never told that, then what different reason was he given for his sacking, for he doesn’t sound in the dark about why he was sacked, does he, he isn’t acting baffled that he accepted a “reasonless sacking” and now asking what for. He must have been told a reason by SoS, and he’s not coming clean about what that was, is he?
Ministers can't lie to the House of Commons in theory, but they do. A certain Boris Johnson springs to mind.
#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons
FPT: There are good reasons to wear shoes or even boots, especially in poor places with warmer climates. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookworm
#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons
"SoS noted that she had received a briefing on the governance issues at the Post Office and that the complaints against HS are so serious that the government need to intervene."
Not sure that that gives much support to either of their positions...
(ETA: and that's probably worse for Kemi than it is for HS)
The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.
1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public? 2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it. 3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.
On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.
It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.
It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.
Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.
I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.
He's certainly not taking it lying down...
This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.
Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...
Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".
Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive
So how would you have responded in her position?
And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?
I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.
Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.
I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.
*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.
What I would not do is make broad and public claims of dishonesty and misconduct against a former colleague whom I dismissed, that I would struggle to stand up, and which are slam dunks for a defamation suit if I don't.
That's because I'm not as stupid as Badenoch. None of this is of any interest except this is a betting site and Badenoch is heir apparent for next Tory leader
We will see. However your determination to believe Badenoch is stupid feels agenda driven. Why?
Maybe can overdo stupid. Badenoch is extraordinarily aggressive however and doesn't seem to stop to think. Whatever. It's noteworthy none of her minister colleagues have rallied to her side, which might suggest she'll struggle to get past the MP vote and on the shortlist for next leader.
I agree with Frank, I think. It’s a game of which one is lying. And minister can’t lie to House of Commons. If you look at it objectively, without bias, Staunton is the likely liar.
What officially was Henry Staunton sacked for? That’s the first question to answer.
If not for bullying accusations against him, then what? Did Badenoch in Trumpesque doubling down today, gave a reason for his sacking to the commons, she hadn’t given him in her sacking conversation with him? Hard to believe, as lying to the commons today would be her political career hit below waterline.
Correct me where wrong, this Henry Staunton, through what sounds like a legal team, is trying to claim “Staunton had never been made aware Of bullying allegations against him and that they were certainly not raised by the secretary of state at any stage, and certainly not during the conversation which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal.” So easy to answer. The transcript of that sacking meeting, Libdems, Labour and Keegan the current education secretary are all urging Badenoch to publish, will clear up the question if she told him about the bullying in that meeting or not, because that that can’t possibly be missing from the minute of that meeting, as that’s exactly what the meeting was all about, I’m sacking you for this reason.
I think I am doubting Staunton more in this game of “nail the liar to the wall”, if he is sacked for bullying accusations against him, but was never told that, then what different reason was he given for his sacking, for he doesn’t sound in the dark about why he was sacked, does he, he isn’t acting baffled that he accepted a “reasonless sacking” and now asking what for. He must have been told a reason by SoS, and he’s not coming clean about what that was, is he?
If Kemi Badenoch can demonstrate Henry Staunton was formally found guilty of bullying and that's the reason she sacked him, she is in the clear. If she can't, she is in deep trouble and potentially at the end of a ruinous libel suit. So far, based on her own words in parliament, she is well below that high bar.
Nothing Staunton has claimed is potentially libelous in the same way if his statements turn out incorrect.
Labour accused him of having been disciplined by the BBC and having invented material to feed his personal Islamophobia. The first was demonstrably not true and the second was not provable - but to to put it mildly, if one of your allegations is demonstrated false, it leaves you with something of a credibility gap in fighting a libel suit.
Another person who claimed Ware had invented material to harm Labour in 'Is Labour Anti-Semitic,' Labour blogger and activist Paddy French, had such a weak case that he didn't even bother to turn up to court to defend himself. (He later claimed the court was rigged against him. Not at all a person with issues.)
So just to be clear - our resident not at all a racist is talking bullshit.
#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons
Even in the wake of last week’s disastrous byelections, [Sunak’s] leadership seems secure, for the simple reason that nobody vying for the crown wants to seize it this side of the general election.
A good defence relies on making hard choices. Dig in against the Liberal Democrats in the “blue wall”, and stand accused of abandoning the new voters won over by Boris Johnson in 2019. Focus on boxing in the threat of Reform UK, and risk losing more voters to Labour and the Lib Dems, the parties actually positioned to take Conservative seats.
Then there’s timing….there are good reasons why a May election would suit the party. Coinciding with the local elections would not only probably save hundreds of Tory councillors, but also ensure that even activists unenthused by Sunak would be out anyway, fighting for their own seats.
[But Tories] are really gearing up for the almighty row that awaits if and when the Conservatives return to opposition. At its heart will be two related questions. First: how did the Tories manage to go from a historic landslide to what is shaping up to be a historic rout in a single parliament? Second: how did the party manage to spend nearly 15 years in office without managing to do much, beyond Brexit, to move the country in a more conservative direction?
Sunak does not really have a place in that battle. Not merely because it will only take place after an election defeat, but because he doesn’t have an ideological dog in the fight. There isn’t a Sunakism…the prime minister’s Treasury-minded managerialism will depart with him.
Until then, he has the thankless task of trying to salvage the best result possible in an extremely difficult election – a task that depends on forcing hard choices on a party that has proved congenitally incapable of confronting them. Again, no wonder there’s fresh talk of an election in May.
Interesting. Looks like a general election in May really could be in the works.
The country certainly needs it.
Was thinking about this today, what does Sunny Boy have to lose? For three months of the difference between May and October, Parliament is in recess anyway. Then it’s conference, which will be a nightmare.
Go in May and he could be sat on a beach earning ten per cent.
The vast quantity of leaflets that the Conservatives have pushed through our letterbox recently is much more what you'd expect for a May election than a November one.
Admittedly, it doesn't help that they don't seem to understand their own boundary changes and so we're currently getting leaflets for two constituencies at once.
We've started getting leaflets - and from more than one party - for the constituency next door, despite the fact that the boundaries here aren't changing. I don't know what the idiots are playing at.
Curiously, the latest Tory propaganda - which came in the form of a faux magazine with a title something like "You and Your Family" (that's probably not even close, but anyway,) failed to mention the Conservative Party at all on the front cover, but did advertise the amazingness of Rishi. Make of that what you will.
Depends who is delivering them. From memory it's cheaper if you use the Royal Mail to use postcode areas which would mean some deliveries to the wrong houses..
#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons
Will it be May or will it be October? I think Mr Sunak can surprise us all and go for mid-August or December 25. Don't rule out October 31 either. Mr Sunak is nothing if not a blue-sky thinker...
Christmas would work if we assume younger people are more likely to travel to older relatives than the other way round.
The whole British electoral thing of will they won’t they election timings is ridiculous.
I think it’s time for the CIA to intervene. “We have credible intelligence from very close to the UK leadership that the decision has been made to call an election in May. This is supported by satellite images showing Conservative battalions massing in marginal constituencies in electoral formations.”
Yes, ridiculous. Has anyone considered legislation to introduce fixed-term parliaments? Could work.
We managed to make a classic British cock up of that. The FTPA was completely useless. I think we managed, erm, one fixed parliament.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.
1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public? 2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it. 3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.
On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.
It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.
It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.
Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.
I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.
He's certainly not taking it lying down...
This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.
Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...
Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".
Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive
So how would you have responded in her position?
And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?
I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.
Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.
I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.
*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.
What I would not do is make broad and public claims of dishonesty and misconduct against a former colleague whom I dismissed, that I would struggle to stand up, and which are slam dunks for a defamation suit if I don't.
That's because I'm not as stupid as Badenoch. None of this is of any interest except this is a betting site and Badenoch is heir apparent for next Tory leader
We will see. However your determination to believe Badenoch is stupid feels agenda driven. Why?
Maybe can overdo stupid. Badenoch is extraordinarily aggressive however and doesn't seem to stop to think. Whatever. It's noteworthy none of her minister colleagues have rallied to her side, which might suggest she'll struggle to get past the MP vote and on the shortlist for next leader.
I agree with Frank, I think. It’s a game of which one is lying. And minister can’t lie to House of Commons. If you look at it objectively, without bias, Staunton is the likely liar.
What officially was Henry Staunton sacked for? That’s the first question to answer.
If not for bullying accusations against him, then what? Did Badenoch in Trumpesque doubling down today, gave a reason for his sacking to the commons, she hadn’t given him in her sacking conversation with him? Hard to believe, as lying to the commons today would be her political career hit below waterline.
Correct me where wrong, this Henry Staunton, through what sounds like a legal team, is trying to claim “Staunton had never been made aware Of bullying allegations against him and that they were certainly not raised by the secretary of state at any stage, and certainly not during the conversation which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal.” So easy to answer. The transcript of that sacking meeting, Libdems, Labour and Keegan the current education secretary are all urging Badenoch to publish, will clear up the question if she told him about the bullying in that meeting or not, because that that can’t possibly be missing from the minute of that meeting, as that’s exactly what the meeting was all about, I’m sacking you for this reason.
I think I am doubting Staunton more in this game of “nail the liar to the wall”, if he is sacked for bullying accusations against him, but was never told that, then what different reason was he given for his sacking, for he doesn’t sound in the dark about why he was sacked, does he, he isn’t acting baffled that he accepted a “reasonless sacking” and now asking what for. He must have been told a reason by SoS, and he’s not coming clean about what that was, is he?
The whole thing is weird. Staunton doesn't seem to realise his allegations make him look bad also.
The Dems have three (and a half) very difficult Senate seats they want to hold:
West Virginia, where Manchin is stepping down, and which Trump won by a gazillion percent back in 2020. Easy Republican pickup.
Ohio, where Sherrod Brown is standing again, in a State that Trump will probably carry by 10 points or so. Closer... but I think probably still a Republican pickup.
Montana, where Tester is personally extremely popular is probably also going to be close. He might hold it, and that poll will give him some confidence, but this is a Presidential year and split ticketing has become increasingly rare. I'd make it 50/50.
And then there's Arizona.
Will Sinema run? The polls show her flaming out badly if she does (sub 20%), but who will she take most share from? If she doesn't then it's very close between her and Kari Lake. My gut is that the Democrats should probably be narrow favorites here, because Lake has tended to underperform her party meaningfully.
It's certain that the Dems will lose West Virginia. It's highly likely that they will lose 2 of their remaining 3 competitive defences.
#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons
"SoS noted that she had received a briefing on the governance issues at the Post Office and that the complaints against HS are so serious that the government need to intervene."
Not sure that that gives much support to either of their positions...
(ETA: and that's probably worse for Kemi than it is for HS)
"...Bernard, the minutes do not record everything that was said at a meeting... people change their minds during a meeting...the actual meeting is a mass of ingredients for you to choose from...you choose from a jumble of ill-digested ideas a version which represents the prime minister's views as he would on reflection have liked them to emerge...the purpose of minutes is not to record events, it is to protect people. You do not take notes. If the prime minister says something he did not mean to say, particularly if it contradicts something he has said publicly, you try to improve on what has been said to put it in a better order..."
Yulia Navalnaya is a very brave lady. I have no idea how powerful her message will be inside of Russia, but it must be scary to put a target on your back for an enemy like Putin.
I very much hope I live to see a day when Russia is finally free of the cycle of autocrats and dictators.
Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.
There's a difference between policy and politics.
Keeping the Triple Lock is good politics - Starmer knows he has to neutralise the huge advantage the Conservatives traditionally have among older voters. - those aged 65 and older voted 64% Conservative, 17% Labour. If Starmer can keep that lead down to 10-15 points, he'll be home and dry. Deltapoll has it at just two points - that's a 22.5% swing among the core Conservative vote. IF that happens on GE day, Conservative MPs will become an endangered species.
Once the election is won and 450-500 seats are in the bag, then we'll see what Starmer is really made of in terms of radically changing the country. Will he, for example, take on the gerontocracy and start to claw back pensioner benefits? He'll have a mandate if he has the will - the Conservatives will naturally be the pensioner's friend in Opposition butn they'll have to answer the awkward questions about we can afford such generous welfare benefits to a growing but largely unproductive part of the population.
Those who aren't fans of Starmer have already made it clear they see his position has pepetuating the management of decline but the Conservatives, if re-elected, will do nothing so how do we change?
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
He's almost certainly talking nonsense.
Whenever I've seen catering like this it's been the other way round: the meat options go quickly and the vegan stuff isn't touched.
The bigger problem is the virtue-signalling you now get with some organisations/events wanting to make statements by only ordering vegan/vegetarian food for everyone - I'm in a fight with one on this very matter right now. When this happens people leave early, and go and get their own food, don't come again or learn next time to buy and eat their own in advance; and it pisses a lot of people off.
Thankfully, I've done the opposite as an experiment: I organised a team social in a steak restaurant. We had 20 people in there, mostly under 30 years old, with unlimited cuts of beef and steak with red wine, and they absolutely loved it. The two vegetarians had their own thing, but the same fries, creamed spinach, peppers and red wine, and had no issue with it at all.
I've seen both things happen - the vegetarian options go left untouched, or the vegetarian options go quickly - because the vegetarian options in a buffet can be side options for omnivores.
The responsible thing to do isn't to cut out the vegetarian options, or the meat options, its to cater for both if you're doing catering. Concerned there's not enough vegetarian options? Order more then! Don't be a selfish **** and eliminate other people's options and only order what you want and screw everyone else.
Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.
I don't think much will come of "citizens assemblies"
As far as the triple lock is concerned, I think they'll probably keep it but start means testing it.
Do it on the same basis as UC, just without the requirement to work. Taper down support for people who are earning more than £631/month, or have more than £6k of assets.
It would be the single biggest thing we could do to reduce government spending, short of closing the NHS.
Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.
I don't think much will come of "citizens assemblies"
As far as the triple lock is concerned, I think they'll probably keep it but start means testing it.
Do it on the same basis as UC, just without the requirement to work. Taper down support for people who are earning more than £631/month, or have more than £6k of assets.
It would be the single biggest thing we could do to reduce government spending, short of closing the NHS.
Or simply tax those who are earning at the same rate as those who are working for their earnings.
Which would include National Insurance, graduate tax etc.
Whatever you earn, however you earn it, should be taxed at the same flat rate.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.
I don’t like citizen assemblies. It’s rubbish.
Labour don’t have any policies, but the ones they have been forced to reveal are sops to unions, lefties and fruitcakes.
Sop for financially clueless lefties: Labour removing NonDom status brings in ZERO extra money let alone pays for EVERYTHING. At the moment you have arrangement that brings in billions - scrap the arrangement so they register as foreign, and you get NOTHING - even a three year old child can work that one out.
Sop to greedy power mad union barons: Labours policy on zero hour contracts, not only will destroy many lovely businesses, but is attack on peoples individual freedom.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons
Badenoch does score one point with this document: Staunton's claim is wrong that Badenoch didn't apologise (or at least express regret) when he found out about his sacking from a journalist. She still needs to stack up her other claims of dishonesty and misconduct through bullying. And she can't disprove Staunton's main claim that he was asked to slow payments.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
"I'm screaming at being offered a hummus and flatbread for lunch. It's my right to have 750g of meat every lunchtime."
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons
"SoS noted that she had received a briefing on the governance issues at the Post Office and that the complaints against HS are so serious that the government need to intervene."
Not sure that that gives much support to either of their positions...
(ETA: and that's probably worse for Kemi than it is for HS)
"...Bernard, the minutes do not record everything that was said at a meeting... people change their minds during a meeting...the actual meeting is a mass of ingredients for you to choose from...you choose from a jumble of ill-digested ideas a version which represents the prime minister's views as he would on reflection have liked them to emerge...the purpose of minutes is not to record events, it is to protect people. You do not take notes. If the prime minister says something he did not mean to say, particularly if it contradicts something he has said publicly, you try to improve on what has been said to put it in a better order..."
Linton Barwick: Get a hold of those minutes. I have to correct the record. Bob Adriano: We can do that? Linton Barwick: Yes, we can. Those minutes are an aide-memoire for us. They should not be a reductive record of what happened to have been said, but they should be more a full record of what was intended to have been said. I think that's the more accurate version, don't you?
Not sure where this fight between the Secretary of State and Staunton ends. Both don’t appear to be backing down. Which screams “get popcorn.” Usually these things peter out on “a recollections vary” dwindling path. But this strikes me as a more Alistair Campbell / Andrew Gilligan type dispute. One of them has to win. Staunton’s probably going to have to name the “senior civil servant” and the Secretary of State is going to have to get nasty on the bullying point (which by a reading of the minutes published does appear to have been mentioned - if you trust the minutes).
As a spectator - and not a particular fan of any of the people or organisations involved - it feels like we are at the stab everyone stage of the scandal. No one is safe and it is either kill or be killed. I repeat “get popcorn”
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
"I'm screaming at being offered a hummus and flatbread for lunch. It's my right to have 750g of meat every lunchtime."
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
That's the point. Unless we have an Inuit on PB? Wouldn't surprise me if someone was self-identifying as one, the way things are going with this DHAL AND BROWN RICE IS THE MOST SADISTIC CRUELTY. .
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
"I'm screaming at being offered a hummus and flatbread for lunch. It's my right to have 750g of meat every lunchtime."
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
You’re not being excluded from dining. If you’re offered from a plate full of cucumber sandwiches in front of you you’re choosing not to eat one is just that, a choice. You’re not being excluded. You’re just being a dick.
Vegetarianism and veganism are philosophies, not a diet, and often adhered to with the strength of a religious belief. Suggesting that your meat eating preferences should always be adhered to as if they were a belief system is not far off suggesting a Kosher restaurant should serve pork. Entitled, disrespectful, and offensive. You do not have to share someone’s beliefs to respect them.
The polls are only going one way and I would venture to suggest Starmer's decision to scrap the 28 billion (£140 billion over 5 years) has been accepted as a wise decision and may indicate not everyone has a devotion to net zero
I see no way back for the conservatives and would prefer a May election but I just cannot see anything other than an Oct/ November one
It would be good to see it all over with, but I still think Rishi will hang on until the last minute!
No, because to do so would mean an election campaign that spanned the Christmas holidays - and the fury of the electorate. Autumn most likely I think.
Are we going astronomical autumn?
The winter solstice is December 21 this year.
The start of winter is odd. I think it is 21 Dec. Met office says 1 Dec. Ordinary conversation seems to align it to anytime from 1st November.
It's possible to celebrate the start of winter multiple times. 1st November is one date, if fixed to the start of the month, or November 6th/7th the other, for Samhain, in the Celtic calendar. Then there's Martinmas, on November 11th, a traditional start of winter feast day in Germanic cultures.
That's three starts to winter before you're even two weeks into November!
Ideally one would reach winter, and the twelve days of Christmastide feasting, already well marinated from about two months of celebrating the start of winter.
Nobody likes that shit. Even vegans look at it with sadness.
Apples. Vegan. Oranges. Vegan. Bananas. Vegan.
Never offer people a piece of fruit.
Yeah, but that's not what it is, is it?
No-one mind fruit and salad. Or beans. That's just part of a healthy balanced diet.
Vegan is "plant-based" wank as a main meal - and i use that term very loosely- with such horrors as tofu and it's almost always disgusting. Sometimes, it's downright fraudulent: like trying to pass off a slice of cauliflower as a steak, and causing abject misery in the process.
Some vegan food is totally unhealthy. Full of artificial shite. And some is just awful.
Best to eat vegetables that are just being vegetables. Pulses that are just being pulses. But quorn is a decent meat substitute.
Yes, and do you now see why people might object to a vegan menu being enforced on them on that basis?
I would be disappointed if that was all that was on offer.
I think a mix of vegan and vegetarian is perfectly acceptable to a mixed audience. I would focus on the cheese and pickle sandwiches in such circumstances.
If anyone thinks I'm going to eat humus they can bugger off.
Full disclosure: This evening I have adopted the "if you are away from home it doesn't count" approach and had a mixed grill.
Middle Eastern humus is gorgeous. Especially Israeli humus.
The stuff you get in this country admittedly tastes like damp cardboard, which is why I'll only eat it when I'm in the Middle East.
Do they also have falafel that don't have the taste and texture of sawdust?
Yes, Israeli falafel are much much nicer.
There is good humus in the kosher section of supermarkets, from Israel. Rarely good falafel though.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
You’re not being excluded from dining. If you’re offered from a plate full of cucumber sandwiches in front of you you’re choosing not to eat one is just that, a choice. You’re not being excluded. You’re just being a dick.
Vegetarianism and veganism are philosophies, not a diet, and often adhered to with the strength of a religious belief. Suggesting that your meat eating preferences should always be adhered to as if they were a belief system is not far off suggesting a Kosher restaurant should serve pork. Entitled, disrespectful, and offensive. You do not have to share someone’s beliefs to respect them.
"If you're being offered from a plate of bacon sandwiches in front of you you're choosing not to eat one is just that, a choice . . . you're just being a dick"
My philosophy and my diet is as strong as a vegetarians, why treat one with respect but not the other?
Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.
There's a difference between policy and politics.
Keeping the Triple Lock is good politics - Starmer knows he has to neutralise the huge advantage the Conservatives traditionally have among older voters. - those aged 65 and older voted 64% Conservative, 17% Labour. If Starmer can keep that lead down to 10-15 points, he'll be home and dry. Deltapoll has it at just two points - that's a 22.5% swing among the core Conservative vote. IF that happens on GE day, Conservative MPs will become an endangered species.
Once the election is won and 450-500 seats are in the bag, then we'll see what Starmer is really made of in terms of radically changing the country. Will he, for example, take on the gerontocracy and start to claw back pensioner benefits? He'll have a mandate if he has the will - the Conservatives will naturally be the pensioner's friend in Opposition butn they'll have to answer the awkward questions about we can afford such generous welfare benefits to a growing but largely unproductive part of the population.
Those who aren't fans of Starmer have already made it clear they see his position has pepetuating the management of decline but the Conservatives, if re-elected, will do nothing so how do we change?
Hey, oldies, try not to fall over as you'll be waiting five hours for an ambulance and then spend twenty hours on a trolley in A&E corridor as the beds are blocked with dementia patients who cannot get social care.
But look on the bright side, we'll be bunking you another £800 a year soon.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Nobody likes that shit. Even vegans look at it with sadness.
Apples. Vegan. Oranges. Vegan. Bananas. Vegan.
Never offer people a piece of fruit.
Yeah, but that's not what it is, is it?
No-one mind fruit and salad. Or beans. That's just part of a healthy balanced diet.
Vegan is "plant-based" wank as a main meal - and i use that term very loosely- with such horrors as tofu and it's almost always disgusting. Sometimes, it's downright fraudulent: like trying to pass off a slice of cauliflower as a steak, and causing abject misery in the process.
It has no tofu and is a main meal. Another is a pasta, spinach and mushroom pasta bake.
I love meat: I had a bacon and sausage breakfast baguette this morning before my swim (that *may* have been a mistake...). But it's totally ridiculous to say that vegan main meals are disgusting. They *can* be, but they can also be virtually indistinguishable from vegetarian, or even ones with small amounts of meat.
(*) If I can be bothered to use vegan cheese.
Mushroom risotto has a bad name, as it's the go to veggy/vegan dish on a thousand menus, and is rarely good.
Mine is great.
The thing is, it tastes a lot better if made with chicken stock, and then parmesan grated over.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
You’re not being excluded from dining. If you’re offered from a plate full of cucumber sandwiches in front of you you’re choosing not to eat one is just that, a choice. You’re not being excluded. You’re just being a dick.
Vegetarianism and veganism are philosophies, not a diet, and often adhered to with the strength of a religious belief. Suggesting that your meat eating preferences should always be adhered to as if they were a belief system is not far off suggesting a Kosher restaurant should serve pork. Entitled, disrespectful, and offensive. You do not have to share someone’s beliefs to respect them.
"If you're being offered from a plate of bacon sandwiches in front of you you're choosing not to eat one is just that, a choice . . . you're just being a dick"
My philosophy and my diet is as strong as a vegetarians, why treat one with respect but not the other?
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.
There's a difference between policy and politics.
Keeping the Triple Lock is good politics - Starmer knows he has to neutralise the huge advantage the Conservatives traditionally have among older voters. - those aged 65 and older voted 64% Conservative, 17% Labour. If Starmer can keep that lead down to 10-15 points, he'll be home and dry. Deltapoll has it at just two points - that's a 22.5% swing among the core Conservative vote. IF that happens on GE day, Conservative MPs will become an endangered species.
Once the election is won and 450-500 seats are in the bag, then we'll see what Starmer is really made of in terms of radically changing the country. Will he, for example, take on the gerontocracy and start to claw back pensioner benefits? He'll have a mandate if he has the will - the Conservatives will naturally be the pensioner's friend in Opposition butn they'll have to answer the awkward questions about we can afford such generous welfare benefits to a growing but largely unproductive part of the population.
Those who aren't fans of Starmer have already made it clear they see his position has pepetuating the management of decline but the Conservatives, if re-elected, will do nothing so how do we change?
Hey, oldies, try not to fall over as you'll be waiting five hours for an ambulance and then spend twenty hours on a trolley in A&E corridor as the beds are blocked with dementia patients who cannot get social care.
But look on the bright side, we'll be bunking you another £800 a year soon.
What a f*cking country.
For someone who is an oldy and has experienced something similar in A & E in the last 4 months it is not really a joking matter
It is a very serious issue that no politician has the courage to face and that includes Starmer
Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.
There's a difference between policy and politics.
Keeping the Triple Lock is good politics - Starmer knows he has to neutralise the huge advantage the Conservatives traditionally have among older voters. - those aged 65 and older voted 64% Conservative, 17% Labour. If Starmer can keep that lead down to 10-15 points, he'll be home and dry. Deltapoll has it at just two points - that's a 22.5% swing among the core Conservative vote. IF that happens on GE day, Conservative MPs will become an endangered species.
Once the election is won and 450-500 seats are in the bag, then we'll see what Starmer is really made of in terms of radically changing the country. Will he, for example, take on the gerontocracy and start to claw back pensioner benefits? He'll have a mandate if he has the will - the Conservatives will naturally be the pensioner's friend in Opposition butn they'll have to answer the awkward questions about we can afford such generous welfare benefits to a growing but largely unproductive part of the population.
Those who aren't fans of Starmer have already made it clear they see his position has pepetuating the management of decline but the Conservatives, if re-elected, will do nothing so how do we change?
Hey, oldies, try not to fall over as you'll be waiting five hours for an ambulance and then spend twenty hours on a trolley in A&E corridor as the beds are blocked with dementia patients who cannot get social care.
But look on the bright side, we'll be bunking you another £800 a year soon.
What a f*cking country.
Spot on! Cut their taxes, bang em dosh - but is anyone really better off when that leads to the social fabric of our country falling apart?
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Nobody likes that shit. Even vegans look at it with sadness.
Apples. Vegan. Oranges. Vegan. Bananas. Vegan.
Never offer people a piece of fruit.
Yeah, but that's not what it is, is it?
No-one mind fruit and salad. Or beans. That's just part of a healthy balanced diet.
Vegan is "plant-based" wank as a main meal - and i use that term very loosely- with such horrors as tofu and it's almost always disgusting. Sometimes, it's downright fraudulent: like trying to pass off a slice of cauliflower as a steak, and causing abject misery in the process.
It has no tofu and is a main meal. Another is a pasta, spinach and mushroom pasta bake.
I love meat: I had a bacon and sausage breakfast baguette this morning before my swim (that *may* have been a mistake...). But it's totally ridiculous to say that vegan main meals are disgusting. They *can* be, but they can also be virtually indistinguishable from vegetarian, or even ones with small amounts of meat.
(*) If I can be bothered to use vegan cheese.
Mushroom risotto has a bad name, as it's the go to veggy/vegan dish on a thousand menus, and is rarely good.
Mine is great.
The thing is, it tastes a lot better if made with chicken stock, and then parmesan grated over.
Don't start the grated parmesan wars again!! @rcs1000 has only just refreshed the servers.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Will it be May or will it be October? I think Mr Sunak can surprise us all and go for mid-August or December 25. Don't rule out October 31 either. Mr Sunak is nothing if not a blue-sky thinker...
Christmas would work if we assume younger people are more likely to travel to older relatives than the other way round.
The whole British electoral thing of will they won’t they election timings is ridiculous.
I think it’s time for the CIA to intervene. “We have credible intelligence from very close to the UK leadership that the decision has been made to call an election in May. This is supported by satellite images showing Conservative battalions massing in marginal constituencies in electoral formations.”
"We have credible intelligence, none of which is in the British Government."
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Comments
But eventually probably makes you too many enemies, or leaves you in a position whereby you start a scrap with the wrong person and come a cropper.
I think it’s time for the CIA to intervene.
“We have credible intelligence from very close to the UK leadership that the decision has been made to call an election in May. This is supported by satellite images showing Conservative battalions massing in marginal constituencies in electoral formations.”
We can only hope.
Nor does one of our resident vegans, come to that.
Slightly newer second-hand phone required !
By comparison, in the same time period I spent:
£2,971 on mobile voice/data/roaming
£6,180 on computers
£208k on rent... (sigh)
Smartphones seem like amazingly good value to me.
There are all-up elections in Conservative-controlled Dudley and in the Labour run authorities of North Tyneside and Rotherham. The Conservatives have a majority of 12 (42-30) but there are new boundaries.
Solihull and Walsall are the two Met boroughs with third-up elections this year. The Conservatives have 29 of the 51 Councillors in Solihull but there are 17 seats up for grabs. Even so, it's hard to see the party being dislodged while Walsall is the new Conservative heartland. Arguably one of the best results for the Tories last year, there's no chance of Labour and the Indpendents breaking the Conservative dominance.
On to the Unitaries and Dorset has its first all-up election since 2019 - the Conservatives have 43 seats and a majority of four but it's hard to see that being sustained. Could the LDs take control - seems a stretch but NOC with the LDs largest party looks feasible.
At District Council level, a number of councils have all-up elections this year. Those with a current Conservative majority facing elections are Basildon, Epping Forest, Fareham, Gloucester, Harlow, Havant, Nuneaton & Bedworth and Redditch. May well be worth a more detailed look at some of these in the next month of two.
Adur is electing half its councillors and perhaps Labour will be able to continue its strong growth on the south coast and rob the Tories of their majority.
Tester (Dem incumbent) with significant lead over three potential Rep challengers - 15%, 9% and 9%.
There have been posts on here in recent weeks saying he was likely to lose.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
What officially was Henry Staunton sacked for? That’s the first question to answer.
If not for bullying accusations against him, then what? Did Badenoch in Trumpesque doubling down today, gave a reason for his sacking to the commons, she hadn’t given him in her sacking conversation with him? Hard to believe, as lying to the commons today would be her political career hit below waterline.
Correct me where wrong, this Henry Staunton, through what sounds like a legal team, is trying to claim
“Staunton had never been made aware Of bullying allegations against him and that they were certainly not raised by the secretary of state at any stage, and certainly not during the conversation which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal.”
So easy to answer. The transcript of that sacking meeting, Libdems, Labour and Keegan the current education secretary are all urging Badenoch to publish, will clear up the question if she told him about the bullying in that meeting or not, because that that can’t possibly be missing from the minute of that meeting, as that’s exactly what the meeting was all about, I’m sacking you for this reason.
I think I am doubting Staunton more in this game of “nail the liar to the wall”, if he is sacked for bullying accusations against him, but was never told that, then what different reason was he given for his sacking, for he doesn’t sound in the dark about why he was sacked, does he, he isn’t acting baffled that he accepted a “reasonless sacking” and now asking what for. He must have been told a reason by SoS, and he’s not coming clean about what that was, is he?
She will be worse than Sunak.
Get Cameron back, he'd be the best of the lot.
Curiously, the latest Tory propaganda - which came in the form of a faux magazine with a title something like "You and Your Family" (that's probably not even close, but anyway,) failed to mention the Conservative Party at all on the front cover, but did advertise the amazingness of Rishi. Make of that what you will.
#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons
https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1759681586964934746?s=20
…
"SoS noted that she had received a briefing on the governance issues at the Post Office and that the complaints against HS are so serious that the government need to intervene."
Not sure that that gives much support to either of their positions...
(ETA: and that's probably worse for Kemi than it is for HS)
Nothing Staunton has claimed is potentially libelous in the same way if his statements turn out incorrect.
I was right! There clearly in black and white. She told him. And he’s now proved to be lying about that.
Badenoch in the clear on this one. Bring on the leadership election.
I could be the new Sue Gray. Even better, I could be the new Cyclefree 😇
Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
West Virginia, where Manchin is stepping down, and which Trump won by a gazillion percent back in 2020. Easy Republican pickup.
Ohio, where Sherrod Brown is standing again, in a State that Trump will probably carry by 10 points or so. Closer... but I think probably still a Republican pickup.
Montana, where Tester is personally extremely popular is probably also going to be close. He might hold it, and that poll will give him some confidence, but this is a Presidential year and split ticketing has become increasingly rare. I'd make it 50/50.
And then there's Arizona.
Will Sinema run? The polls show her flaming out badly if she does (sub 20%), but who will she take most share from? If she doesn't then it's very close between her and Kari Lake. My gut is that the Democrats should probably be narrow favorites here, because Lake has tended to underperform her party meaningfully.
It's certain that the Dems will lose West Virginia. It's highly likely that they will lose 2 of their remaining 3 competitive defences.
"Official Secrets", Yes Prime Minister, Series 2, Episode 2, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF-Qnv2Srfs
This AI-generated image of a citizens’ assembly is amazing.
I very much hope I live to see a day when Russia is finally free of the cycle of autocrats and dictators.
As far as the triple lock is concerned, I think they'll probably keep it but start means testing it.
Keeping the Triple Lock is good politics - Starmer knows he has to neutralise the huge advantage the Conservatives traditionally have among older voters. - those aged 65 and older voted 64% Conservative, 17% Labour. If Starmer can keep that lead down to 10-15 points, he'll be home and dry. Deltapoll has it at just two points - that's a 22.5% swing among the core Conservative vote. IF that happens on GE day, Conservative MPs will become an endangered species.
Once the election is won and 450-500 seats are in the bag, then we'll see what Starmer is really made of in terms of radically changing the country. Will he, for example, take on the gerontocracy and start to claw back pensioner benefits? He'll have a mandate if he has the will - the Conservatives will naturally be the pensioner's friend in Opposition butn they'll have to answer the awkward questions about we can afford such generous welfare benefits to a growing but largely unproductive part of the population.
Those who aren't fans of Starmer have already made it clear they see his position has pepetuating the management of decline but the Conservatives, if re-elected, will do nothing so how do we change?
The responsible thing to do isn't to cut out the vegetarian options, or the meat options, its to cater for both if you're doing catering. Concerned there's not enough vegetarian options? Order more then! Don't be a selfish **** and eliminate other people's options and only order what you want and screw everyone else.
It would be the single biggest thing we could do to reduce government spending, short of closing the NHS.
Which would include National Insurance, graduate tax etc.
Whatever you earn, however you earn it, should be taxed at the same flat rate.
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Sop for financially clueless lefties: Labour removing NonDom status brings in ZERO extra money let alone pays for EVERYTHING. At the moment you have arrangement that brings in billions - scrap the arrangement so they register as foreign, and you get NOTHING - even a three year old child can work that one out.
Sop to greedy power mad union barons: Labours policy on zero hour contracts, not only will destroy many lovely businesses, but is attack on peoples individual freedom.
Sop to fruitcakes: Citizen Assemblies.
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
That's what is coming over in this discussion.
Linton Barwick: Get a hold of those minutes. I have to correct the record.
Bob Adriano: We can do that?
Linton Barwick: Yes, we can. Those minutes are an aide-memoire for us. They should not be a reductive record of what happened to have been said, but they should be more a full record of what was intended to have been said. I think that's the more accurate version, don't you?
Not sure where this fight between the Secretary of State and Staunton ends. Both don’t appear to be backing down. Which screams “get popcorn.” Usually these things peter out on “a recollections vary” dwindling path. But this strikes me as a more Alistair Campbell / Andrew Gilligan type dispute. One of them has to win. Staunton’s probably going to have to name the “senior civil servant” and the Secretary of State is going to have to get nasty on the bullying point (which by a reading of the minutes published does appear to have been mentioned - if you trust the minutes).
As a spectator - and not a particular fan of any of the people or organisations involved - it feels like we are at the stab everyone stage of the scandal. No one is safe and it is either kill or be killed. I repeat “get popcorn”
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
Pensioners are ruthless when it comes to voting for their own interests and you don’t want to annoy them .
Vegetarianism and veganism are philosophies, not a diet, and often adhered to with the strength of a religious belief. Suggesting that your meat eating preferences should always be adhered to as if they were a belief system is not far off suggesting a Kosher restaurant should serve pork. Entitled, disrespectful, and offensive. You do not have to share someone’s beliefs to respect them.
That's three starts to winter before you're even two weeks into November!
Ideally one would reach winter, and the twelve days of Christmastide feasting, already well marinated from about two months of celebrating the start of winter.
There is good humus in the kosher section of supermarkets, from Israel. Rarely good falafel though.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
https://www.wholesomeyum.com/low-carb-keto-chicken-crust-pizza-recipe/
My philosophy and my diet is as strong as a vegetarians, why treat one with respect but not the other?
But look on the bright side, we'll be bunking you another £800 a year soon.
What a f*cking country.
Starmer cannot afford the triple lock, and either he will volte face once in office or the pension age will rise to 70 +
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
It is a very serious issue that no politician has the courage to face and that includes Starmer
*seriously puzzled*
My beliefs and my diet is a perfectly legal option, every bit as much worthy of respect as a vegetarians.
You only eat meat?
Or a cup of tea and a slice of cake at teatime?