BBC News report on 20 years of Park Run. The problem is since they started, levels of obesity and overweight-ness have gone up, not down. What does that tell us?
Running 5km once per week will not come close to burning enough calories to cause measurable weight loss.
But that's missing the point: Park Run is far more about mental health than physical.
BBC News report on 20 years of Park Run. The problem is since they started, levels of obesity and overweight-ness have gone up, not down. What does that tell us?
A divergence between the healthy and unhealthy, the rich and poor, net contributors and net recipients.
(my theory is this is what kills off the NHS)
A few 'healthy eating' YT channels I've watched of late have given me a remarkable insight. It seems being quite well-off, eating nice organic food (ideally from your own copious garden), really helps.
Having a massive US-style fridge full of ferments, pickles and preserves - also double-plus-good.
(Not saying it's the only factor, but as with many things, having a bit of cash and security in life sure helps)
I think it's time.
I cooked tonight, dishwasher is broken. Half a dozen utensils and knives, three pans and stuff like graters, garlic press, measuring bowl etc etc. Decent meal, my partner is suitably impressed and I've been promised scrambled eggs in the morning. But the washing up...
Would've been a lot easier to chuck a frozen pizza in, for roughly the same £ cost.
Tonight I cooked my annual moussaka with home-grown aubergines and potatoes. I ignored Greek tradition by paying for the lamb. Kleftico literally means stolen (from the same root as kleptomania) and it was the practice of the ancient Greeks to dig a pit, light a fire, half-inch a neighbour's sheep, chuck it into the blazing pit and cover it with earth. It would cook to perfection in a day or two ... allegedly. My moussaka took three hours from start to finish but will provide Mrs S and me with dinner for three nights (eventually).
“Argentina’s foreign minister, Diana Mondino, promised “concrete action” to ensure that the Falklands, the British-controlled archipelago that Argentina calls the Malvinas and claims as its own, are handed to Buenos Aires.
She said: “Following the path we have already taken, with concrete actions and not empty rhetoric, we will recover full sovereignty over our Malvinas Islands.””
Guardian
And, they may well find Labour tango.
I'm not sure there's any trench they'd fight in for the British national interest.
Even Starmer isn't stupid enough to give away the Falklands to Argentina without the Falkland Islanders consent, it would be political suicide and bring down his government. If anything got Farage into government that would be it
Their starting point will be that all the ills of the world are down to Britain and there can be no moral or legitimate reason for Britain to hold any form of overseas territory anywhere, and anyone else who has a claim must have a good point. The rest will follow from that. Any opposition will be put down to a 'Rule Britannia' mentality, which they'll find even eww and will do all the work confirmation bias needs to do for them.
You've got to get into the mindset of how these people think.
They also accept self determination though, given Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly have voted to stay British in referendums on the subject they can't challenge that.
Falkland Islanders would also declare UDI if the Starmer government even considered handing them over to Argentina and would fight and kill any Argentine who stepped on their shores, they are better armed than in 1982. Given a Starmer government would also be trounced by a Farage and/or Tory landslide if the Falklands were given away to Argentina without Islanders consent, the new hard right UK government would certainly re invade the Falklands to impose UK rule again
What are they going to invade with
It was touch and go in 1982, and we do not have the military or logistics to fight a war 8,000 miles away now
If you are fighting for your freedom you not only have personal guns, you can use knives to slit throats, even go full wicker man on an invader who gets detached from his comrades.
The UK of course also has more aircraft carriers and subs than Argentina to sink Argentine ships with
Why didn't the Islanders resist like this in 1982?
Or perhaps life isn't like your armchair fantasies?
As Thatcher had sent a task force within five minutes. Longer time they could well have started killing Argentine occupation forces otherwise
Was there a single Argentinian killed by a Falkland Islander in the entire conflict?
No as the article said they formed resistance and sabotage of Argentine communications. They had bided their time over taking up arms as the British had arrived.
Leon is right, if weak, hand wringing useless British heritage haters like you take control of Starmer and his hapless government then Great Britain is dead.
You must be crushed
You are completely bonkers.
I do not hate Britain or it's heritage.
I have just supported the Chagos deal as it rights a historic wrong.
It’s interesting that Reform are challenging the Tories in both Wales and Scotland. Perhaps it’s a symptom of the Ulsterisation of the mainland: the Tories are too wet for unionists.
“Argentina’s foreign minister, Diana Mondino, promised “concrete action” to ensure that the Falklands, the British-controlled archipelago that Argentina calls the Malvinas and claims as its own, are handed to Buenos Aires.
She said: “Following the path we have already taken, with concrete actions and not empty rhetoric, we will recover full sovereignty over our Malvinas Islands.””
Guardian
Do you think they'll invade a la 1982???
No, President Milei made clear 'As a presidential candidate, Milei said Argentina had lost the war to the British and must “make every effort to recover the islands through diplomatic channels,” according to state news agency Télam.
And we now know these “diplomatic channels” work. That’s the example set by the Mauritians
Just put a bit of moral pressure on pathetic Britain and it folds immediately
The moral pressure would surely be on Argentina, given the Malv... er, I mean the Falklands have never actually been part of Argentina?
Just as the Chagos islands have never been part of Mauritius.
Not true. They were until 1968.
Indeed we deported the Chagossians to Mauritius (and the Seychelles) for that reason.
Err wasn't that simply because we administered them as one unit during the empire ???
How on earth is that a basis for them claiming sovereignty over Chagos ?
Because we administered them as one. It's why Rodriguez Island is part of Mauritius too.
We administered Burma in the same administrative unit as India, yet that does not give them any residual right to their land.
If we had de-populated Burma by deporting all it's people to India then they might reasonably do so.
The Chagossians in Mauritius seem to back the transfer.
The Telegraph reporting tonight it will need an act of Parliament and a vote
And yet their own cartoon sums it up: Cleverly, Truss, Lammy and Starmer are all shouting at each other and pointing at a map of Chagos and saying "your fault".
For the tories to pretend they are not involved in this decision is desperate bollocks.
Not sure what that has to do with an Act of Parliament if indeed it is needed
The rest is politics
Personally I have no problem with the decision
The context of the cartoon is a news piece claiming there is "fury" and that a vote will need to be taken and immediately following that paragraph we have Jenrick being quoted as saying "staunch opposition" etc etc.
Yet Johnson started this and Cleverly did most of the ground work.
It's the Telegraph ffs. You'd get more insightful commentary on the antics of the Labour government in Viz.
Starmer has five years to prove governments can seriously deliver.
Otherwise it is the Farage show in Downing Street and a Liberal opposition.
The Liberals aren't going anywhere near being one of the 2 main parties, at most they might make a deal with Labour to keep out Farage and Jenrick in a hung parliament
Meanwhile I see Tommy Robinson has had some positive words for Jenrick '@TRobinsonNewEra English identity is under threat! Robert Jenrick warns ties which bind the nation together are beginning to 'fray' due to mass immigration and woke culture | . He's listening'
While GOP Governor of Florida Ron De Santis has made a video endorsing Badenoch and she has also gained the endorsement of former Australian PM Tony Abbott. Jenrick of course has previously been to Canada to meet with Canadian Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre
Musk is unhinged . Spouting absolute garbage at Trumps rally.
What a loathsome creature .
What I don’t get is that although he’s a ****, he has been a good businessman, and I assume his biggest profit centre remains Tesla while he spends gazillions perfecting his rockets. And yet via his actions with Twitter and Trump he’s surely alienating the primary Tesla market? I don’t understand him.
Musk is unhinged . Spouting absolute garbage at Trumps rally.
What a loathsome creature .
What I don’t get is that although he’s a ****, he has been a good businessman, and I assume his biggest profit centre remains Tesla while he spends gazillions perfecting his rockets. And yet via his actions with Twitter and Trump he’s surely alienating the primary Tesla market? I don’t understand him.
He has over 400 billion dollars. His purchase of Twitter and antics dropped its value by over 30billion dollars, but he can well afford it. His electric vehicles sell well and although some now resile from Tesla cars due to his remarks, many more do not. He can do what the heck he likes because he can afford to absorb the consequences.
BBC News report on 20 years of Park Run. The problem is since they started, levels of obesity and overweight-ness have gone up, not down. What does that tell us?
As an aside Park Run doesn't exist in France anymore (Mrs Eek did it a couple of times when we were in Paris) - as you now do need a Doctor's note to participate...
The French requiring excessive and unnecessary paperwork, surely not. Next you will be telling me the organised also regularly went on strike demanding betting work conditions (despite being volunteers).
BBC News report on 20 years of Park Run. The problem is since they started, levels of obesity and overweight-ness have gone up, not down. What does that tell us?
Losing weight / staying trim is for most people long term diet habits first and foremost.
I also think a lot of these things are somewhat displacement activities, in terms of if it wasn't Park Run, it probably be something else for many people and they would still be pounding the pavements. I am sure there are success stories that Park Run was the one thing that got somebody going, but in general weight is about consistent lifestyle choices and if not Park Run, loads of the people who love that, it might Hyrox or Crossfit, or insert the 1000 other group activity things that are available.
And, I did a 50km bike ride this morning, that isn't burning off the pizza / beer I had for dinner.
Maybe, contrary to some, the Guardian is a newspaper more than a propaganda sheet.
Like all newspapers they have their own biases, but for instance they gave Blair an fairly easy ride initially (as did many other papers). They seem much more irritate about specifically the freebies to Starmer than for instance left leaning posters on PB, while giving policy decisions fairly easy go over.
e.g. while running a defensive piece over abject failure and somebody else who took many a freebie.
“Argentina’s foreign minister, Diana Mondino, promised “concrete action” to ensure that the Falklands, the British-controlled archipelago that Argentina calls the Malvinas and claims as its own, are handed to Buenos Aires.
She said: “Following the path we have already taken, with concrete actions and not empty rhetoric, we will recover full sovereignty over our Malvinas Islands.””
Guardian
And, they may well find Labour tango.
I'm not sure there's any trench they'd fight in for the British national interest.
Even Starmer isn't stupid enough to give away the Falklands to Argentina without the Falkland Islanders consent, it would be political suicide and bring down his government. If anything got Farage into government that would be it
Their starting point will be that all the ills of the world are down to Britain and there can be no moral or legitimate reason for Britain to hold any form of overseas territory anywhere, and anyone else who has a claim must have a good point. The rest will follow from that. Any opposition will be put down to a 'Rule Britannia' mentality, which they'll find even eww and will do all the work confirmation bias needs to do for them.
You've got to get into the mindset of how these people think.
They also accept self determination though, given Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly have voted to stay British in referendums on the subject they can't challenge that.
Falkland Islanders would also declare UDI if the Starmer government even considered handing them over to Argentina and would fight and kill any Argentine who stepped on their shores, they are better armed than in 1982. Given a Starmer government would also be trounced by a Farage and/or Tory landslide if the Falklands were given away to Argentina without Islanders consent, the new hard right UK government would certainly re invade the Falklands to impose UK rule again
What are they going to invade with
It was touch and go in 1982, and we do not have the military or logistics to fight a war 8,000 miles away now
If you are fighting for your freedom you not only have personal guns, you can use knives to slit throats, even go full wicker man on an invader who gets detached from his comrades.
The UK of course also has more aircraft carriers and subs than Argentina to sink Argentine ships with
Why didn't the Islanders resist like this in 1982?
Or perhaps life isn't like your armchair fantasies?
As Thatcher had sent a task force within five minutes. Longer time they could well have started killing Argentine occupation forces otherwise
Was there a single Argentinian killed by a Falkland Islander in the entire conflict?
No as the article said they formed resistance and sabotage of Argentine communications. They had bided their time over taking up arms as the British had arrived.
Leon is right, if weak, hand wringing useless British heritage haters like you take control of Starmer and his hapless government then Great Britain is dead.
You must be crushed
You are completely bonkers.
I do not hate Britain or it's heritage.
I have just supported the Chagos deal as it rights a historic wrong.
I fear all it has done is create another 'wrong'. One you will not care about.
BBC News report on 20 years of Park Run. The problem is since they started, levels of obesity and overweight-ness have gone up, not down. What does that tell us?
Running 5km once per week will not come close to burning enough calories to cause measurable weight loss.
But that's missing the point: Park Run is far more about mental health than physical.
As a regular volunteer at our junior one, I'd also point out it's Park Walk as well; you do not need to run it. And some young kids don't.
“Argentina’s foreign minister, Diana Mondino, promised “concrete action” to ensure that the Falklands, the British-controlled archipelago that Argentina calls the Malvinas and claims as its own, are handed to Buenos Aires.
She said: “Following the path we have already taken, with concrete actions and not empty rhetoric, we will recover full sovereignty over our Malvinas Islands.””
Guardian
And, they may well find Labour tango.
I'm not sure there's any trench they'd fight in for the British national interest.
Even Starmer isn't stupid enough to give away the Falklands to Argentina without the Falkland Islanders consent, it would be political suicide and bring down his government. If anything got Farage into government that would be it
Equality for women! Until it's a bad thing and then women are special and different and need to be treated as victims when they're perpetrators and to have a cushier deal than evil bastard men. The fact men are more violent than women is reflected by the 20 or so men in prison for every 1 woman.
Maybe, contrary to some, the Guardian is a newspaper more than a propaganda sheet.
Comparing the Scott Trust, the owners of the Guardian, with Murdoch, owner of The Sun, The Times, and previously, the News of the World, as well as Sky and Fox News; Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail and it's sisters; and Lededev, owner of the I and previously the Evening Standard l, is quite instructive. Remains to be seen what Paul Marshall, our latest media mogul, will do with his new toys, but GB News is not encouraging.
We have the finest journalism money can buy, and are largely pitied overseas for our generally unserious, feral media.
The Guardian, The Economist and the FT do not off set the crap in the Mail, Express, Telegraph etc etc.
Musk is unhinged . Spouting absolute garbage at Trumps rally.
What a loathsome creature .
What I don’t get is that although he’s a ****, he has been a good businessman, and I assume his biggest profit centre remains Tesla while he spends gazillions perfecting his rockets. And yet via his actions with Twitter and Trump he’s surely alienating the primary Tesla market? I don’t understand him.
Perhaps this is a form of altruism / philanthropy for him? Lots of successful people get drawn in to this.
Maybe, contrary to some, the Guardian is a newspaper more than a propaganda sheet.
Comparing the Scott Trust, the owners of the Guardian, with Murdoch, owner of The Sun, The Times, and previously, the News of the World, as well as Sky and Fox News; Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail and it's sisters; and Lededev, owner of the I and previously the Evening Standard l, is quite instructive. Remains to be seen what Paul Marshall, our latest media mogul, will do with his new toys, but GB News is not encouraging.
We have the finest journalism money can buy, and are largely pitied overseas for our generally unserious, feral media.
The Guardian, The Economist and the FT do not off set the crap in the Mail, Express, Telegraph etc etc.
The Guardian ought to have been shut down over Wikileaks alone.
Equality for women! Until it's a bad thing and then women are special and different and need to be treated as victims when they're perpetrators and to have a cushier deal than evil bastard men. The fact men are more violent than women is reflected by the 20 or so men in prison for every 1 woman.
I've been listening to the BBC podcast series 'Lady killers' with Lucy Worsley. Each episode, they look at a historic female killer from a feminist perspective.
It's quite interesting. Unfortunately, the 'feminist perspective' sometimes appears to be excusing murderers and victim-blaming. It can be a little on the nose at times, and I'm unconvinced it does women any good.
We know it coming along with a load of sin taxes / nanny state restrictions.
Ministers are facing pressure to introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol after Lord Darzi’s investigation into the NHS highlighted the “alarming” death toll in England caused by cheap drink.
Less than a month after Scotland released figures showing that minimum pricing had comprehensively failed and that alcohol related deaths have hit a 15 year high.
great for supermarkets though, free money. You could see the point if the money was used to help alchoholics.
Mr. Jessop, aye, it's double standards. A shame, as giving women an equal appraisal historically can be pretty interesting. One of my favourite blog posts to write was about women in the early Diadochi era. Olympias, Adea, Roxanne, and Cratesipolis are very dramatic characters in history.
We know it coming along with a load of sin taxes / nanny state restrictions.
Ministers are facing pressure to introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol after Lord Darzi’s investigation into the NHS highlighted the “alarming” death toll in England caused by cheap drink.
Less than a month after Scotland released figures showing that minimum pricing had comprehensively failed and that alcohol related deaths have hit a 15 year high.
great for supermarkets though, free money. You could see the point if the money was used to help alchoholics.
One of the knock on effects of all the ban the BOGOF deal in supermarkets, it kicked them into you all need a loyalty card to get the "special" price (i.e. what the price should be but marketed as a deal) and we run much more complex set of ever changing deals. Which we know will of course favour them.
Mr. Jessop, aye, it's double standards. A shame, as giving women an equal appraisal historically can be pretty interesting. One of my favourite blog posts to write was about women in the early Diadochi era. Olympias, Adea, Roxanne, and Cratesipolis are very dramatic characters in history.
I've got zero problem at looking at crimes committed by women through the lens of the time they lived in; in fact, that's why I keep on listening. I've got zero problem in wondering whether a particular woman committed the crime or not.
It becomes slightly problematic for me when they start discussing whether the times they lived in excused, or even justified the crimes. Even more so when they do not give the same latitude to the men in the stories - who were as trapped in their times as the women.
In addition - and this is not just a problem faced by this podcast - discussing killers all too often ignores, or even denigrates, the victims. Something we often see to this day, with murderers being more 'famous' than the victims, with some notable exceptions.
I recently listened to an interesting podcast about a new book that discusses Jack the Ripper - except it barely mentions him, and instead tells what we know of his victims. I quite like that approach from a historical viewpoint.
Mr. Jessop, that can happen especially with Irene, Empress of Byzantium, who gets praised for being a competent female ruler (the only one really in Eastern Roman history) and ending Iconoclasm. Both are true, although the last one might be over-egged as it was ending anyway and perceptions may be due to historical propaganda from those at the time exaggerating matters.
She also blinded her own son, the rightful emperor, so brutally he died of his wounds. This was not only vicious it was also incredibly stupid as her power rested on her role initially as a regent and then theoretically reigning alongside her son. His removal meant no heir/rightful ruler, which meant every man with the chance of power started manoeuvring for the top job.
Ages ago I pointed out to someone on Twitter that highlighting her as a great woman for some Women's Day or other was not perhaps entirely right. They responded by blocking me, deleting the original tweet, then reposting the same content claiming the first one (which had my reply offering historical context) had a grammatical error.
Equality for women! Until it's a bad thing and then women are special and different and need to be treated as victims when they're perpetrators and to have a cushier deal than evil bastard men. The fact men are more violent than women is reflected by the 20 or so men in prison for every 1 woman.
I've been listening to the BBC podcast series 'Lady killers' with Lucy Worsley. Each episode, they look at a historic female killer from a feminist perspective.
It's quite interesting. Unfortunately, the 'feminist perspective' sometimes appears to be excusing murderers and victim-blaming. It can be a little on the nose at times, and I'm unconvinced it does women any good.
I was just about to post this about "Lady Killers". Lucy Worsley sometimes tries to bring her "unique perspective" just for the sake of being "different."
Mr. Jessop, aye, it's double standards. A shame, as giving women an equal appraisal historically can be pretty interesting. One of my favourite blog posts to write was about women in the early Diadochi era. Olympias, Adea, Roxanne, and Cratesipolis are very dramatic characters in history.
I've got zero problem at looking at crimes committed by women through the lens of the time they lived in; in fact, that's why I keep on listening. I've got zero problem in wondering whether a particular woman committed the crime or not.
It becomes slightly problematic for me when they start discussing whether the times they lived in excused, or even justified the crimes. Even more so when they do not give the same latitude to the men in the stories - who were as trapped in their times as the women.
In addition - and this is not just a problem faced by this podcast - discussing killers all too often ignores, or even denigrates, the victims. Something we often see to this day, with murderers being more 'famous' than the victims, with some notable exceptions.
I recently listened to an interesting podcast about a new book that discusses Jack the Ripper - except it barely mentions him, and instead tells what we know of his victims. I quite like that approach from a historical viewpoint.
This isn't a problem particular to female historical leaders, though, is it?
Take just about any leader that students learn about in school, or children's history books are written about. By today's standards they'd almost always qualify both as a dictator and as a psychopath serial killer. And yet we celebrate them (as I wrote in my header a couple of months back).
Relatedly, I find the list of philosophers we celebrate often quite bizarre. Until very recent history we tend to only remember those operating within the confines of Christianity, and yet so much of their argument is either obviously false or very weakly justified because their end goal is so often a rational justification for a faith that is essentially irrational.
Mr. Jessop, aye, it's double standards. A shame, as giving women an equal appraisal historically can be pretty interesting. One of my favourite blog posts to write was about women in the early Diadochi era. Olympias, Adea, Roxanne, and Cratesipolis are very dramatic characters in history.
I've got zero problem at looking at crimes committed by women through the lens of the time they lived in; in fact, that's why I keep on listening. I've got zero problem in wondering whether a particular woman committed the crime or not.
It becomes slightly problematic for me when they start discussing whether the times they lived in excused, or even justified the crimes. Even more so when they do not give the same latitude to the men in the stories - who were as trapped in their times as the women.
In addition - and this is not just a problem faced by this podcast - discussing killers all too often ignores, or even denigrates, the victims. Something we often see to this day, with murderers being more 'famous' than the victims, with some notable exceptions.
I recently listened to an interesting podcast about a new book that discusses Jack the Ripper - except it barely mentions him, and instead tells what we know of his victims. I quite like that approach from a historical viewpoint.
This isn't a problem particular to female historical leaders, though, is it?
Take just about any leader that students learn about in school, or children's history books are written about. By today's standards they'd almost always qualify both as a dictator and as a psychopath serial killer. And yet we celebrate them (as I wrote in my header a couple of months back).
Relatedly, I find the list of philosophers we celebrate often quite bizarre. Until very recent history we tend to only remember those operating within the confines of Christianity, and yet so much of their argument is either obviously false or very weakly justified because their end goal is so often a rational justification for a faith that is essentially irrational.
I wasn't actually talking about female historical leaders; but yes, I agree with your point.
As a minor example: take Titus Salt. He can be seen as very forward-thinking, but also incredibly backwards. I've seen him depicted in both these forms.
On the plus side: He was a very good employer for the times, and provided good housing for his workers.
On the negative side: If you did not go to church, you were out of a job. Lose your job, you lost your home.
As the negatives were hardly unusual at the time, and the positives both unusual and oddly progressive, I'd put him on the side of the saints. Although such an employer nowadays would be seen as a sinner.
“Argentina’s foreign minister, Diana Mondino, promised “concrete action” to ensure that the Falklands, the British-controlled archipelago that Argentina calls the Malvinas and claims as its own, are handed to Buenos Aires.
She said: “Following the path we have already taken, with concrete actions and not empty rhetoric, we will recover full sovereignty over our Malvinas Islands.””
Guardian
And, they may well find Labour tango.
I'm not sure there's any trench they'd fight in for the British national interest.
Even Starmer isn't stupid enough to give away the Falklands to Argentina without the Falkland Islanders consent, it would be political suicide and bring down his government. If anything got Farage into government that would be it
Their starting point will be that all the ills of the world are down to Britain and there can be no moral or legitimate reason for Britain to hold any form of overseas territory anywhere, and anyone else who has a claim must have a good point. The rest will follow from that. Any opposition will be put down to a 'Rule Britannia' mentality, which they'll find even eww and will do all the work confirmation bias needs to do for them.
You've got to get into the mindset of how these people think.
They also accept self determination though, given Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly have voted to stay British in referendums on the subject they can't challenge that.
Falkland Islanders would also declare UDI if the Starmer government even considered handing them over to Argentina and would fight and kill any Argentine who stepped on their shores, they are better armed than in 1982. Given a Starmer government would also be trounced by a Farage and/or Tory landslide if the Falklands were given away to Argentina without Islanders consent, the new hard right UK government would certainly re invade the Falklands to impose UK rule again
What are they going to invade with
It was touch and go in 1982, and we do not have the military or logistics to fight a war 8,000 miles away now
If you are fighting for your freedom you not only have personal guns, you can use knives to slit throats, even go full wicker man on an invader who gets detached from his comrades.
The UK of course also has more aircraft carriers and subs than Argentina to sink Argentine ships with
We don't have any operational attack subs.
Everything else about your post was correct, nuanced and considered, however.
As of May 2024, the Royal Navy has six operational fleet submarines: one Trafalgar-class submarine and five Astute-class submarines. Two more Astute-class submarines are under construction.
You are thinking of our "Vanguard" Trident subs which at some point recently have all been "not at sea".
HMS Agamemnon (the sixth Astute-class sub) was launched on Wednesday.
Equality for women! Until it's a bad thing and then women are special and different and need to be treated as victims when they're perpetrators and to have a cushier deal than evil bastard men. The fact men are more violent than women is reflected by the 20 or so men in prison for every 1 woman.
I've been listening to the BBC podcast series 'Lady killers' with Lucy Worsley. Each episode, they look at a historic female killer from a feminist perspective.
It's quite interesting. Unfortunately, the 'feminist perspective' sometimes appears to be excusing murderers and victim-blaming. It can be a little on the nose at times, and I'm unconvinced it does women any good.
I was just about to post this about "Lady Killers". Lucy Worsley sometimes tries to bring her "unique perspective" just for the sake of being "different."
It's a yawn as she is . Very irritating person. Seems to b more about her...
Mr. Jessop, aye, it's double standards. A shame, as giving women an equal appraisal historically can be pretty interesting. One of my favourite blog posts to write was about women in the early Diadochi era. Olympias, Adea, Roxanne, and Cratesipolis are very dramatic characters in history.
I've got zero problem at looking at crimes committed by women through the lens of the time they lived in; in fact, that's why I keep on listening. I've got zero problem in wondering whether a particular woman committed the crime or not.
It becomes slightly problematic for me when they start discussing whether the times they lived in excused, or even justified the crimes. Even more so when they do not give the same latitude to the men in the stories - who were as trapped in their times as the women.
In addition - and this is not just a problem faced by this podcast - discussing killers all too often ignores, or even denigrates, the victims. Something we often see to this day, with murderers being more 'famous' than the victims, with some notable exceptions.
I recently listened to an interesting podcast about a new book that discusses Jack the Ripper - except it barely mentions him, and instead tells what we know of his victims. I quite like that approach from a historical viewpoint.
This isn't a problem particular to female historical leaders, though, is it?
Take just about any leader that students learn about in school, or children's history books are written about. By today's standards they'd almost always qualify both as a dictator and as a psychopath serial killer. And yet we celebrate them (as I wrote in my header a couple of months back).
Relatedly, I find the list of philosophers we celebrate often quite bizarre. Until very recent history we tend to only remember those operating within the confines of Christianity, and yet so much of their argument is either obviously false or very weakly justified because their end goal is so often a rational justification for a faith that is essentially irrational.
I wasn't actually talking about female historical leaders; but yes, I agree with your point.
As a minor example: take Titus Salt. He can be seen as very forward-thinking, but also incredibly backwards. I've seen him depicted in both these forms.
On the plus side: He was a very good employer for the times, and provided good housing for his workers.
On the negative side: If you did not go to church, you were out of a job. Lose your job, you lost your home.
As the negatives were hardly unusual at the time, and the positives both unusual and oddly progressive, I'd put him on the side of the saints. Although such an employer nowadays would be seen as a sinner.
You cannot take historical context out of things.
Yes, sorry, half asleep, replying half to you and half to Morris Dancer (and now replying on a dead thread...)
Comments
But that's missing the point: Park Run is far more about mental health than physical.
I do not hate Britain or it's heritage.
I have just supported the Chagos deal as it rights a historic wrong.
Reform rising
https://x.com/JackReformUK/status/1842591721731088495?t=jNosI2MqwWcRh84HZNvccg&s=19
Otherwise it is the Farage show in Downing Street and a Liberal opposition.
Senedd elections in 18 months (May 2026)
English identity is under threat! Robert Jenrick warns ties which bind the nation together are beginning to 'fray' due to mass immigration and woke culture | . He's listening'
https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1837040084161290345
While GOP Governor of Florida Ron De Santis has made a video endorsing Badenoch and she has also gained the endorsement of former Australian PM Tony Abbott. Jenrick of course has previously been to Canada to meet with Canadian Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1957829/kemi-badenoch-wins-surprise-endorsement
https://x.com/JAHeale/status/1792995468382806249
It could end up in a Lab/Lib government or a Con/Ref government. Too early to tell, yet.
What a loathsome creature .
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/05/revealed-premier-leagues-100000-freebies-operation-to-target-cabinet-and-mps-amid-battle-over-new-regulator
I also think a lot of these things are somewhat displacement activities, in terms of if it wasn't Park Run, it probably be something else for many people and they would still be pounding the pavements. I am sure there are success stories that Park Run was the one thing that got somebody going, but in general weight is about consistent lifestyle choices and if not Park Run, loads of the people who love that, it might Hyrox or Crossfit, or insert the 1000 other group activity things that are available.
And, I did a 50km bike ride this morning, that isn't burning off the pizza / beer I had for dinner.
e.g. while running a defensive piece over abject failure and somebody else who took many a freebie.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/oct/04/amy-lame-steps-down-london-night-czar-and-nightlife-could-be-poorer-for-it
Crackers approach with open sexism, once again (I recall the Corston Report from 2007), relating to women in prison:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c243650gj07o
Equality for women! Until it's a bad thing and then women are special and different and need to be treated as victims when they're perpetrators and to have a cushier deal than evil bastard men. The fact men are more violent than women is reflected by the 20 or so men in prison for every 1 woman.
We have the finest journalism money can buy, and are largely pitied overseas for our generally unserious, feral media.
The Guardian, The Economist and the FT do not off set the crap in the Mail, Express, Telegraph etc etc.
Agent recruited to undermine European relations is still in the country’s parliament
https://www.thetimes.com/world/ireland-world/article/honeytrapped-irish-politician-spied-for-russia-during-brexit-saga-k5wn7sfb2 (£££)
The politician is not named, btw.
It's quite interesting. Unfortunately, the 'feminist perspective' sometimes appears to be excusing murderers and victim-blaming. It can be a little on the nose at times, and I'm unconvinced it does women any good.
It becomes slightly problematic for me when they start discussing whether the times they lived in excused, or even justified the crimes. Even more so when they do not give the same latitude to the men in the stories - who were as trapped in their times as the women.
In addition - and this is not just a problem faced by this podcast - discussing killers all too often ignores, or even denigrates, the victims. Something we often see to this day, with murderers being more 'famous' than the victims, with some notable exceptions.
I recently listened to an interesting podcast about a new book that discusses Jack the Ripper - except it barely mentions him, and instead tells what we know of his victims. I quite like that approach from a historical viewpoint.
She also blinded her own son, the rightful emperor, so brutally he died of his wounds. This was not only vicious it was also incredibly stupid as her power rested on her role initially as a regent and then theoretically reigning alongside her son. His removal meant no heir/rightful ruler, which meant every man with the chance of power started manoeuvring for the top job.
Ages ago I pointed out to someone on Twitter that highlighting her as a great woman for some Women's Day or other was not perhaps entirely right. They responded by blocking me, deleting the original tweet, then reposting the same content claiming the first one (which had my reply offering historical context) had a grammatical error.
Take just about any leader that students learn about in school, or children's history books are written about. By today's standards they'd almost always qualify both as a dictator and as a psychopath serial killer. And yet we celebrate them (as I wrote in my header a couple of months back).
Relatedly, I find the list of philosophers we celebrate often quite bizarre. Until very recent history we tend to only remember those operating within the confines of Christianity, and yet so much of their argument is either obviously false or very weakly justified because their end goal is so often a rational justification for a faith that is essentially irrational.
As a minor example: take Titus Salt. He can be seen as very forward-thinking, but also incredibly backwards. I've seen him depicted in both these forms.
On the plus side:
He was a very good employer for the times, and provided good housing for his workers.
On the negative side:
If you did not go to church, you were out of a job.
Lose your job, you lost your home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt
As the negatives were hardly unusual at the time, and the positives both unusual and oddly progressive, I'd put him on the side of the saints. Although such an employer nowadays would be seen as a sinner.
You cannot take historical context out of things.
Oh my goodness.
NEW THREAD