Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sir Gavin Williamson speaks for the Tories and the nation – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    The dodos did survive rather longer (or at least lived much later) than the non-avian theropod dinosaurs, though.
    I thought the PB consensus was that birds ARE dinosaurs..
    Birds are dinosaurs. That's why Carnyx specified non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,468

    CatMan said:

    CatMan said:

    At the last census less than 50% said they were Christian. By the time of the next one there might be a majority of people ticking the "No Religion" box.

    It's not just the Bishops that should go, we need Disestablishmentarianism.

    But surely then we'll be left with a backlash of antidisestablishmentarianism ?
    We can solve that with antiantidisestablishmentarianism.
    At Junior School we used to have to spell that without writing it down.
    The correct answer was, of course,

    "I f-l-o-c-c-i-n-a-u-c-i-n-i-h-i-l-i-p-i-l-i-f-i-c-a-t-e this silly test, Miss."
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,886
    kle4 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
    Yes, God might have been too proactive in taking him down before he did much of anything. Eru Iluvatar did a better job letting Melkor show his true colours, and was a lot more humble, to the point his name was barely even mentioned by others.
    Well as the christian god is omniscient and created everything he must of known how it would turn out so we can hold satan, the lib dems, and pot noodles up as examples of gods evil
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255
    edited October 18
    Pagan2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
    Yes, God might have been too proactive in taking him down before he did much of anything. Eru Iluvatar did a better job letting Melkor show his true colours, and was a lot more humble, to the point his name was barely even mentioned by others.
    Well as the christian god is omniscient and created everything he must of known how it would turn out so we can hold satan, the lib dems, and pot noodles up as examples of gods evil
    Free will, innit.

    But god forbid you exercise that free will in an unapproved way.

    Like voting for Robert Jenrick, just to lamely bring things back to modern events.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,468
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    Arthur Pendragon has stood for parliament several times, he could be made a Peer as a nod to some of the neo-druidic groups, if they apparently did not fight like cats in a sack.
    How many members do Humanists UK have?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    The idea of marriage itself is weird. A contract we enter into that's kinda legally binding but also not, best case scenario you live happily ever after together (in which case you can do that without the bit of paper), worst case scenario you end up hating each other and then it's a costly and difficult process to disentangle yourself.

    As gamblers we should all appreciate that the concept of marriage is largely EV-, with very little financial upside (except tax breaks?) but a whole raft of problems if we lose. And you can live happily ever after together without actually marrying. So why bother?

    Apologies again for chewing you out yesterday, by the way, I thought you were having a go at Viewcode, who I'm rather fond of (not least in part because they get all my nerdy sci fi references...)
    I got married because I kinda needed to for visa reasons, otherwise my wife who I'd met here on a tourist visa would have had to fuck off (well she still did actually, due to the way the application works - the application can't be done in country - but it wasn't for that long). Taking a gambler view on it I figured that if it didn't work out then a divorce after a year (I have a tenuous claim to being Scottish which halves the time limit) wouldn't be that big a deal). This sort of eloping is also extremely handy as it makes the wedding etc miles cheaper as you do it at a registry office on the Isle of Man (only way to legally manage it in British Isles in our situation) and spend fuck all.

    After a few years and it getting to stage kids were sensible, it has a lot of advantages for them if we were to split up, although yes, admittedly not so much for me. But it would be artificial to ignore them and concentrate only on me in my calculus.

    Anyway it's going great so far after six or seven years, but no proper gambler would assume the past guarantees the future!

    Incidentally as any married man will confirm you get treated better by civilised people with a wedding ring / wife. Significantly better in many cases. In all sorts of ways. Something that surprised me as, not being a civilised person, I didn't really know how they behaved.
    That's fair.

    I'm essentially a parody of a forty something Houellebecq protagonist at this point, living like a hobo and railing against society.

    I miss being in a relationship, it did make one feel more grown up. As you say, people treat you differently. Too old and too heartbroken to fall in love again now, though.

    What's the Isle of Man like? I know Jersey and Guernsey reasonably well, and suspect I may end up on one of the islands after the Budget...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,032

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    The dodos did survive rather longer (or at least lived much later) than the non-avian theropod dinosaurs, though.
    I thought the PB consensus was that birds ARE dinosaurs..
    Birds are dinosaurs. That's why Carnyx specified non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
    Trust a marsupial to get those tricky questions of paraphyletic vertebrate groups just so.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    rcs1000 said:

    A friend of mine just got diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

    Fuck.

    That's horrible. I'm sorry to hear that.

    There's a hint of hope with the new treatments being developed by Revolution Medicines, but very early days with those.

    One of my friends was recently diagnosed with PPC, which is similarly bleak news.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,415
    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.

    I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,194
    edited October 18
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
    Jesus is God
    Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
    The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
    Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
    Here is a brief explainer

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f4BJgaOStI
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,468
    edited October 18
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard

    Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
    If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard

    Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
    If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
    It is an Anglican Church in Wales so what is your point ?
    It was not a conservative evangelical church, they only marry non conservative evangelicals in English C of E churches as they have to as it is the established church
    That in general is not how it operates in CofE AIUI; the philosophy is far more welcoming than 'you can only marry here because you have a legal right; we don't really want to do it'.

    In every place I know it is treated as part of the work of the Church and local church to help create strong, lasting marriages. It is seen as part of mission to an instant-satisfaction society which has lost sight much of the value of enduring relationships, and experience thereof.

    For an example of Evangelical Anglican practice, this is what HTB say about their Marriage Course, which is used in quite a number of places:

    Are your courses only for Christians?
    While The Marriage Course and The Pre-Marriage Course are based on Christian principles, they are designed for couples with or without a Christian faith. We would love any couple to feel welcome to attend whether or not they have a Christian faith or any religious faith at all. We are confident all couples will find the courses relevant and helpful for their relationship.

    https://www.themarriagecourse.org/frequently-asked-questions

    The Church of Wales seems to have similar legal regulations to the Church of England, based around a piece of legislation called the "Marriage (Wales) Act 2010":
    https://www.churchinwales.org.uk/en/life-events-2022/weddings/legal-requirements-weddings/
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,415
    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.

    I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.

    I should add that there are a small minority of people who are so deeply malevolent, that I could well believe that their sociopathy comes from a supernatural source.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,657
    viewcode said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
    Jesus is God
    Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
    The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
    Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
    Here is a brief explainer

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f4BJgaOStI
    It bewilders rather than explains! It mostly says what it's not.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,468
    edited October 18

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    I thought 'proper' C of E attendees weren't too keen on people with no prior affiliation getting married in their churches.
    My last for this evening :smile: .

    That depends very much on who you ask; it's variable. Most of the people who staff the services will be unpaid volunteers (eg churchwarden) doing it for the love of it. The people paid will be officiant (eg vicar), organist (who usually have contracts defined by the Royal School of Church Music), and something for the choir / music group.

    Evangelical Anglican churches may be different, in that organists may more often be volunteers who view it as a 'ministry' (their service for the church). This is partly theology, but also because E churches tend to have musicians in their community; many organists are peripatetic across multiple churches for weddings and funerals.

    In other places there may be have a professional / semi-professional choir, and a Director of Music / Worship which may be a salaried position.

    There are also places which specialise in marriages because they have a beautiful building or setting.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.

    I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.

    I should add that there are a small minority of people who are so deeply malevolent, that I could well believe that their sociopathy comes from a supernatural source.
    Yes, but enough about PB regulars.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    A friend of mine just got diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

    Fuck.

    That's horrible. I'm sorry to hear that.

    There's a hint of hope with the new treatments being developed by Revolution Medicines, but very early days with those.

    One of my friends was recently diagnosed with PPC, which is similarly bleak news.
    If you know a contact at Revolution who might be able to get my friend on a trial, ping me on gmail. (My username at gmail.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
    Jesus is God
    Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
    The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
    Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
    I believe it's a mistranslation. It's holy goat.
  • ScarpiaScarpia Posts: 70
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    I thought 'proper' C of E attendees weren't too keen on people with no prior affiliation getting married in their churches.
    My last for this evening :smile: .

    That depends very much on who you ask; it's variable. Most of the people who staff the services will be unpaid volunteers (eg churchwarden) doing it for the love of it. The people paid will be officiant (eg vicar), organist (who usually have contracts defined by the Royal School of Church Music), and something for the choir / music group.

    Evangelical Anglican churches may be different, in that organists may more often be volunteers who view it as a 'ministry' (their service for the church). This is partly theology, but also because E churches tend to have musicians in their community; many organists are peripatetic across multiple churches for weddings and funerals.

    In other places there may be have a professional / semi-professional choir, and a Director of Music / Worship which may be a salaried position.

    There are also places which specialise in marriages because they have a beautiful building or setting.
    Marriages (and to a lesser extent funerals) keep the Cof E at parish level going. The church itself, diocese, organist and choir (if there is one and it is used) get paid.
    As an added bonus, it is customary to leave the wedding flowers to decorate the church for Sunday's service.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,657
    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
    Jesus is God
    Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
    The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
    Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
    I believe it's a mistranslation. It's holy goat.
    Ah! That makes more sense.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,710
    Is the US election really in just two and half weeks' time? It felt like it would never arrive.
  • DumbosaurusDumbosaurus Posts: 806
    edited October 18
    kyf_100 said:


    What's the Isle of Man like? I know Jersey and Guernsey reasonably well, and suspect I may end up on one of the islands after the Budget...

    I was only there briefly to get married (and a couple of weeks before to do the paperwork) for what I was describing then.

    I did live there in 2012 for more or less a year. It's a possible solution to your current issues as certainly back then top rate of income tax was 20% and CGT was 0% in most circumstances. IHT 0% too. Also income tax was capped - you couldn't pay more than iirc 250k. This was why I moved.

    And most importantly - there is no national speed limit.

    Still, it gets boring after a while. And I had certain recreational hobbies that were incompatible with its penal regime.

    In a lot of ways it is what I imagine the UK in the 60s was like.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,854
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
    Jesus is God
    Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
    The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
    Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
    I feel like I need to rewatch/listen to Sir Henry at Rawlinson End now.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,657
    Andy_JS said:

    Is the US election really in just two and half weeks' time? It felt like it would never arrive.

    There is a conflict between what I see and hear in the actual campaigns, and the polling/betting data.

    Do I trust my senses or the data?

    My resolution of the conflict is that the data is being manipulated. There is the motive and capability. But I can't be absolutely certain, just fairly certain. Enough to put the largest sum I've ever bet on Kamala Harris.
  • DumbosaurusDumbosaurus Posts: 806
    edited October 18
    kyf_100 said:


    I miss being in a relationship, it did make one feel more grown up. As you say, people treat you differently. Too old and too heartbroken to fall in love again now, though.

    The treatment you get for being in a relationship is an incredibly minor effect, compared to being married.

    If you want to be cynical about it, you don't have to be in love per se I suppose. Plenty of cultures where it's not a pre-requisite. And if you want to maximise your personal position you could certainly come to an arrangement with an incredibly attractive, much younger lady. I don't think it would work in the UK though... you'd have to move to wherever that is.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,900
    Front pages a sea of tax speculation tonight.

    Will the 30th never bloody arrive??
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,963

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    The dodos did survive rather longer (or at least lived much later) than the non-avian theropod dinosaurs, though.
    Also, some loon is going to bring the Dodo back eventually.

    A DNA sequence exists.
    "What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world." - Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum).
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,963

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    The dodos did survive rather longer (or at least lived much later) than the non-avian theropod dinosaurs, though.
    I thought the PB consensus was that birds ARE dinosaurs..
    Birds are dinosaurs. That's why Carnyx specified non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
    Which of course makes birds a subset of reptiles.
  • Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.

    I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.

    I should add that there are a small minority of people who are so deeply malevolent, that I could well believe that their sociopathy comes from a supernatural source.
    Most of the Glastonbury/Totnes folk that I've met are much more of the light and white witch variety, but you do always get a slightly darker group.

    There are aiways exceotions, but the darker group are usually more akin to performative heavy rockers and bikers than genuine satanists, in my experience.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,900
    I see the deputy of Hamas is hiding out in Qatar.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,963
    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    But maybe enough Jedis?

    Or, Sith? ;)
    For the nth time, there are only two Sith. One is the leader of the Conservative Party, and the other is Sir Jacob Rees Mogg. 😃
    "The UK is to be reorganised into the First Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society!"
  • ohnotnow said:

    rcs1000 said:

    A friend of mine just got diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

    Fuck.

    Jeez. The best of luck to your friend and the best of wishes to you to help them as you can.
    Sorry to hear that. it's one of the worst ones unfortunately
  • We have crossover on 538. Now 52% Trump - 48% Harris
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255
    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.

    I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.

    Prices in Glastonbury for crystals and stuff is insane.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255

    I see the deputy of Hamas is hiding out in Qatar.

    Sounds like he's much smarter than the previous leader.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,900

    We have crossover on 538. Now 52% Trump - 48% Harris

    I see they are calling it the "closest election of the century".

  • kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.

    I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.

    Prices in Glastonbury for crystals and stuff is insane.
    Most of the crystal folk are very much.on the more positive and optimistic side, though.

    I know a very interesting chap who was actually a physics lecturer that I was at school with, who sells them in Brighton.
  • Barnesian said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is the US election really in just two and half weeks' time? It felt like it would never arrive.

    There is a conflict between what I see and hear in the actual campaigns, and the polling/betting data.

    Do I trust my senses or the data?

    My resolution of the conflict is that the data is being manipulated. There is the motive and capability. But I can't be absolutely certain, just fairly certain. Enough to put the largest sum I've ever bet on Kamala Harris.
    I'm reaching the opposite conclusion that Trump will narrowly prevail in the Electoral College (Harris may very narrowly win the popular vote).

    Let's imagine that the race is between Generic Democrat and Generic Republican, who wins?

    The key issues are the cost of living, which is impacting the US as much as many other Western countries, immigration where the Dems have lost control and crime. Abortion is really the only issue that favours the Dems. There's also the personnel issue of having a President who is seen as past it.

    So in my view, Generic Republican wins handily.

    In the real race, Trump is clearly marmite. He drives up Republican turnout but also Democrat turnout. Harris, after a convention bounce has reverted to the mean. She's better than Biden, but not good enough to overcome the fundamentals. For me, the error is not distancing herself more for Biden, especially on policies that are unpopular.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,657

    We have crossover on 538. Now 52% Trump - 48% Harris

    Harris is 2% ahead on national poll on 538


  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,900
    Captured in a fucking nutshell...



    Republicans against Trump
    @RpsAgainstTrump


    Trump supporter: I like Trump because he did everything he said he was going to do

    Q what are some of these things he said and then did?

    Trump supporter: “Hmm…You caught me off guard there…I don't know”🤦‍♂️

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1847325714514587832
  • Barnesian said:

    We have crossover on 538. Now 52% Trump - 48% Harris

    Harris is 2% ahead on national poll on 538


    See here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

    2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255

    Captured in a fucking nutshell...



    Republicans against Trump
    @RpsAgainstTrump


    Trump supporter: I like Trump because he did everything he said he was going to do

    Q what are some of these things he said and then did?

    Trump supporter: “Hmm…You caught me off guard there…I don't know”🤦‍♂️

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1847325714514587832

    People often get a bit confused or even contradictory when they get to the 'because' part of why they like someone. It's gut feeling and the brain doesn't always catch up to provide logical explanation.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255

    Barnesian said:

    We have crossover on 538. Now 52% Trump - 48% Harris

    Harris is 2% ahead on national poll on 538


    See here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

    2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
    Some of the polls apparently reckon she could win the EC even if she is behind in the popular vote. I don't buy it. She needs a big popular vote win to be confident of getting enough in the super tight states, unfortunately.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    kyf_100 said:


    What's the Isle of Man like? I know Jersey and Guernsey reasonably well, and suspect I may end up on one of the islands after the Budget...

    I was only there briefly to get married (and a couple of weeks before to do the paperwork) for what I was describing then.

    I did live there in 2012 for more or less a year. It's a possible solution to your current issues as certainly back then top rate of income tax was 20% and CGT was 0% in most circumstances. IHT 0% too. Also income tax was capped - you couldn't pay more than iirc 250k. This was why I moved.

    And most importantly - there is no national speed limit.

    Still, it gets boring after a while. And I had certain recreational hobbies that were incompatible with its penal regime.

    In a lot of ways it is what I imagine the UK in the 60s was like.
    Sounds quite similar to Jersey and Guernsey, then. However the house prices there are horrific. And I am a cheap bastard, so if I absolutely have to exile myself to somewhere without CGT, I could see myself putting up with IoM for a year before moving somewhere else the following year. Painful but doable.

    Honestly I'm good with paying 20% or thereabouts, but if they do put it up to 40% as rumoured I'd be mad to stay...

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    The dodos did survive rather longer (or at least lived much later) than the non-avian theropod dinosaurs, though.
    I thought the PB consensus was that birds ARE dinosaurs..
    Tyrannosaurs were from a branch that didn't become birds.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    The dodos did survive rather longer (or at least lived much later) than the non-avian theropod dinosaurs, though.
    Also, some loon is going to bring the Dodo back eventually.

    A DNA sequence exists.
    Why bother they probably taste like chicken
    They may well do, but imagine how much you could charge. I can imagine @Leon being first in the queue.

    I believe a Woolly Mammoth sequence exists too.
    Don't have to recreate those however just defrost a few

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/permafrozen-dinner/604069/
    There was an SF short story, where they go back in time. On the way back a Tyrannosaur tries to get through the portal and gets thoroughly cooked. They discover it's like chicken. But infinitely better. So they start a fast food company that makes zillions.

    Can't remember the name of the story....
  • kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    We have crossover on 538. Now 52% Trump - 48% Harris

    Harris is 2% ahead on national poll on 538


    See here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

    2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
    Some of the polls apparently reckon she could win the EC even if she is behind in the popular vote. I don't buy it. She needs a big popular vote win to be confident of getting enough in the super tight states, unfortunately.
    I don't buy it either. I just checked:

    In 2016, Hillary was 2.1% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Pennsylvania by 0.7%
    In 2020, Biden was 4.5% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%

    So based on that the tipping point nationally is a Harris lead of 3.2% - more than that,she wins; less than that, Trum wins.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,710
    A slight problem has arisen.

    "Who Is Favored To Win Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral Votes?
    Trump wins 51 times out of 100in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.
    Harris wins 49 times out of 100."

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/pennsylvania/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    The dodos did survive rather longer (or at least lived much later) than the non-avian theropod dinosaurs, though.
    Also, some loon is going to bring the Dodo back eventually.

    A DNA sequence exists.
    "What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world." - Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum).
    Which strongly suggests that the Ian Malcolm character has some serious issues.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576
    kle4 said:

    Captured in a fucking nutshell...



    Republicans against Trump
    @RpsAgainstTrump


    Trump supporter: I like Trump because he did everything he said he was going to do

    Q what are some of these things he said and then did?

    Trump supporter: “Hmm…You caught me off guard there…I don't know”🤦‍♂️

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1847325714514587832

    People often get a bit confused or even contradictory when they get to the 'because' part of why they like someone. It's gut feeling and the brain doesn't always catch up to provide logical explanation.
    You'd have got the same from a lot of followers of Boulanger, I expect.
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 758

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    We have crossover on 538. Now 52% Trump - 48% Harris

    Harris is 2% ahead on national poll on 538


    See here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

    2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
    Some of the polls apparently reckon she could win the EC even if she is behind in the popular vote. I don't buy it. She needs a big popular vote win to be confident of getting enough in the super tight states, unfortunately.
    I don't buy it either. I just checked:

    In 2016, Hillary was 2.1% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Pennsylvania by 0.7%
    In 2020, Biden was 4.5% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%

    So based on that the tipping point nationally is a Harris lead of 3.2% - more than that,she wins; less than that, Trum wins.
    Wisconsin was Biden in 2020?
  • Monkeys said:

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    We have crossover on 538. Now 52% Trump - 48% Harris

    Harris is 2% ahead on national poll on 538


    See here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

    2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
    Some of the polls apparently reckon she could win the EC even if she is behind in the popular vote. I don't buy it. She needs a big popular vote win to be confident of getting enough in the super tight states, unfortunately.
    I don't buy it either. I just checked:

    In 2016, Hillary was 2.1% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Pennsylvania by 0.7%
    In 2020, Biden was 4.5% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%

    So based on that the tipping point nationally is a Harris lead of 3.2% - more than that,she wins; less than that, Trum wins.
    Wisconsin was Biden in 2020?
    Sorry

    In 2020, Biden was 4.5% ahead in the popular vote and won the tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%
  • KnightOutKnightOut Posts: 144
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    I thought 'proper' C of E attendees weren't too keen on people with no prior affiliation getting married in their churches.
    My last for this evening :smile: .

    That depends very much on who you ask; it's variable. Most of the people who staff the services will be unpaid volunteers (eg churchwarden) doing it for the love of it. The people paid will be officiant (eg vicar), organist (who usually have contracts defined by the Royal School of Church Music), and something for the choir / music group.

    Evangelical Anglican churches may be different, in that organists may more often be volunteers who view it as a 'ministry' (their service for the church). This is partly theology, but also because E churches tend to have musicians in their community; many organists are peripatetic across multiple churches for weddings and funerals.

    In other places there may be have a professional / semi-professional choir, and a Director of Music / Worship which may be a salaried position.

    There are also places which specialise in marriages because they have a beautiful building or setting.

    I had a High Anglo-Catholic wedding service with bells and incense and AV/prayerbook liturgy. Plus lots of great choral music, some of it composed by me.

    Which felt a bit like sticking it to the Evangelicals, which was nice.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    A friend of mine just got diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

    Fuck.

    That's horrible. I'm sorry to hear that.

    There's a hint of hope with the new treatments being developed by Revolution Medicines, but very early days with those.

    One of my friends was recently diagnosed with PPC, which is similarly bleak news.
    If you know a contact at Revolution who might be able to get my friend on a trial, ping me on gmail. (My username at gmail.)
    I don’t, sorry; just stuff I follow.

    K(RAS) is a potential target expressed by most pancreatic tumours, that was thought for a long time to be ‘undruggable’. Theirs was the first therapy to do so (it’s a so called “molecular glue”).

    It’s suddenly an big area of development; here’s a list of (mostly very early) clinical trials:
    https://x.com/brindaalagesan/status/1846353522947703088

    A physician at one of the big cancer centers is probably the person to ask.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,018
    Malmesbury said: "There was an SF short story, where they go back in time. On the way back a Tyrannosaur tries to get through the portal and gets thoroughly cooked. They discover it's like chicken. But infinitely better. So they start a fast food company that makes zillions.

    Can't remember the name of the story...."

    Sounds like Isaac Asimov's "A Statue for Father". (It's in his "Buy Jupiter" collection.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Andy_JS said:

    A slight problem has arisen.

    "Who Is Favored To Win Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral Votes?
    Trump wins 51 times out of 100in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.
    Harris wins 49 times out of 100."

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/pennsylvania/

    The various models’ predictions are no better than the polls they’re based on.
    And I’m fairly sure that the assumptions based around the last electoral cycle (or two) will prove inaccurate for this one.
    Though in whose favour is anyone’s guess.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,710
    "Blow to Meloni’s Albania deal as court orders asylum seekers’ return to Italy
    Judges’ decision on 12 men held in Italian migration hub in Albania also casts doubt on EU’s hardline plans"

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/18/blow-to-melonis-albania-deal-as-court-orders-asylum-seekers-return-to-italy
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,900

    Malmesbury said: "There was an SF short story, where they go back in time. On the way back a Tyrannosaur tries to get through the portal and gets thoroughly cooked. They discover it's like chicken. But infinitely better. So they start a fast food company that makes zillions.

    Can't remember the name of the story...."

    Sounds like Isaac Asimov's "A Statue for Father". (It's in his "Buy Jupiter" collection.)

    No doubt @leon will be tucking into this shortly thanks to Knappers and will report back from the portal.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576

    Malmesbury said: "There was an SF short story, where they go back in time. On the way back a Tyrannosaur tries to get through the portal and gets thoroughly cooked. They discover it's like chicken. But infinitely better. So they start a fast food company that makes zillions.

    Can't remember the name of the story...."

    Sounds like Isaac Asimov's "A Statue for Father". (It's in his "Buy Jupiter" collection.)

    @Jim_Miller

    That might be the very one - thanks!
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,018
    Since you have been discussing weddings, today's "Bound and Gagged" comic strip may be timely: https://www.gocomics.com/boundandgagged/2024/10/18

    (And I have the awful feeling that something very much like it may have already happened here in the US.)
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,018
    You're welcome.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    Andy_JS said:

    A slight problem has arisen.

    "Who Is Favored To Win Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral Votes?
    Trump wins 51 times out of 100in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.
    Harris wins 49 times out of 100."

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/pennsylvania/

    The latest poll has Pennsylvania Harris 49% Trump 49% so I don't think it means any more than that, the election is going to the wire as has been evident for weeks
    https://www.thebullfinchgroup.com/post/your-election-guide-for-the-midrust-battlegrounds
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    edited October 18
    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    This thread has got both illuminating anf weird.
    I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.

    The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.

    To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
    I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.

    The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
    Yes, I agree. I've just returned from Naples. Everywhere, you see little shrines, where people burn candles and lay flowers.
    My mother-in-law went on a cruise. It was staffed - as these things are - by Indonesians. In a friendly conversation, they asked her what religion she was - she replied she was an atheist. "But who do you pray to?" They were not bothered that she might pray to a different God, but deeply troubled, and incomprehending, that she might not have one at all.
    Atheism and agnosticism is more common that @Sean_F suggests.

    The majority (probably close to 70%) of people in both China and Japan identify as secular, atheist or agnostic. Shinto and Buddhism are increasingly cultural identification - like me celebrating Christmas - than firm religious belief. And South Korea is not far behind those two.

    South American has also seen a big uptick in atheism/agnosticism. For example, in Uruguay, around 40% of the population is either atheist, agnostic, or non-religious. Chile has also seen a rise in irreligion, with about 36% of the population identifying as non-religious in 2022.

    Now, sure, there are still some deeply religious countries out there (in Africa or Asia). But then again, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland used to be highly religious, and they certainly aren't anymore.
    China and Japan are declining population wise and economically as are most of the non religious western nations.

    The fastest growth and highest level of optimism in the world is in more religious nations in Africa and Singapore and India and the UAE etc.

    72% of Italians say they are religious as do 71% of Greeks, 73% of Mexicans and 72% of Portuguese, so you are wrong on that too
    https://ceoworld.biz/2024/04/08/worlds-most-and-least-religious-countries-2024/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    edited October 18
    Scarpia said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Don’t know how accurate this is but apparently only 2% of the UK population are CoE regulars. The established church is a complete nonsense.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population

    Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.

    The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
    Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
    Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
    I thought 'proper' C of E attendees weren't too keen on people with no prior affiliation getting married in their churches.
    My last for this evening :smile: .

    That depends very much on who you ask; it's variable. Most of the people who staff the services will be unpaid volunteers (eg churchwarden) doing it for the love of it. The people paid will be officiant (eg vicar), organist (who usually have contracts defined by the Royal School of Church Music), and something for the choir / music group.

    Evangelical Anglican churches may be different, in that organists may more often be volunteers who view it as a 'ministry' (their service for the church). This is partly theology, but also because E churches tend to have musicians in their community; many organists are peripatetic across multiple churches for weddings and funerals.

    In other places there may be have a professional / semi-professional choir, and a Director of Music / Worship which may be a salaried position.

    There are also places which specialise in marriages because they have a beautiful building or setting.
    Marriages (and to a lesser extent funerals) keep the Cof E at parish level going. The church itself, diocese, organist and choir (if there is one and it is used) get paid.
    As an added bonus, it is customary to leave the wedding flowers to decorate the church for Sunday's service.
    In most liberal Catholic ones maybe, in many conservative evangelical urban churches with big congregations certainly not.

    Holy Trinity Brompton has a £10 million a year annual income excluding wedding revenue
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    edited October 18
    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
    The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    edited October 18
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    This thread has got both illuminating anf weird.
    I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.

    The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.

    To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
    I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.

    The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
    Yes, I agree. I've just returned from Naples. Everywhere, you see little shrines, where people burn candles and lay flowers.
    My mother-in-law went on a cruise. It was staffed - as these things are - by Indonesians. In a friendly conversation, they asked her what religion she was - she replied she was an atheist. "But who do you pray to?" They were not bothered that she might pray to a different God, but deeply troubled, and incomprehending, that she might not have one at all.
    Atheism and agnosticism is more common that @Sean_F suggests.

    The majority (probably close to 70%) of people in both China and Japan identify as secular, atheist or agnostic. Shinto and Buddhism are increasingly cultural identification - like me celebrating Christmas - than firm religious belief. And South Korea is not far behind those two.

    South American has also seen a big uptick in atheism/agnosticism. For example, in Uruguay, around 40% of the population is either atheist, agnostic, or non-religious. Chile has also seen a rise in irreligion, with about 36% of the population identifying as non-religious in 2022.

    Now, sure, there are still some deeply religious countries out there (in Africa or Asia). But then again, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland used to be highly religious, and they certainly aren't anymore.
    China and Japan are declining population wise and economically as are most of the non religious western nations.

    The fastest growth and highest level of optimism in the world is in more religious nations in Africa and Singapore and India and the UAE etc.

    72% of Italians say they are religious as do 71% of Greeks, 73% of Mexicans and 72% of Portuguese, so you are wrong on that too
    https://ceoworld.biz/2024/04/08/worlds-most-and-least-religious-countries-2024/
    54% of Irish also say they feel religious still
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,300
    TSE bashing the bishops again I see...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,618
    GIN1138 said:

    TSE bashing the bishops again I see...

    WELBY
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,710
    Still think Harris is going to win but it's going to be mighty close.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,565

    viewcode said:

    ydoethur said:

    There are no circumstances under which Sir Gavin 'Huawei' Williamson speaks for anyone but himself and his chums.

    He's right on this.
    No he isn't. We had the argument about the nature of the HoL a decade ago and the answer is clear: it shouldn't be a democratically elected body, but instead a collection of experts and interest groups to advise, amend, and delay.
    Actually, we had the argument 114 years ago and the 1911 Parliament Act includes the following by way of introduction:

    "it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis"

    The Commons has far too much power already - or, more accurately, a prime minister with a comfortable majority has far too much unchecked power. A Senate, elected from the regions by STV, would be a useful check on that power. Not necessarily co-equal but certainly more in that direction than as present.

    For most of parliament's history, the Lords *was* more-or-less equal with the Commons; Britain didn't do too badly from the arrangement. And most other democracies have second chambers with substantially more power than the Lords does, and get by well enough.
    A "Senate" isn't British and STV even less so. We're not a Roman Republic.

    The reason HoL Reform has never happened is due to the shit ideas for its alternatives.
    STV was invented by an Englishman. It was first used within the British Empire (Tasmania) in 1896. It was first used for UK elections for some Commons seats in 1918 and was retained there until 1950. There was then a gap, before it returned for elections in Northern Ireland in 1973. It has remained in use in the UK since then, extending to Scotland in 2007. That means it has been in use in the UK for over three quarters of the last century.

    And that's just government elections. It is widely used in UK bodies, such as trades unions, the Oxford Union, and the General Synod of the Church of England.

    STV is literally nicknamed the British proportional representation system. It is exceedingly British. It has never been used for Italian or Roman elections.
    Don't care if the General Synod use it or some poncey debating society in Oxford University, or some koalas used it on an island Down Under 120 yeara ago.

    It's shit. It's possibly the most tedious, pedantic and soul destroyingly endless voting system there is, and I'd take almost anything else.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,888
    America’s equivalent of Martin Lewis has endorsed Trump.

    https://x.com/joma_gc/status/1847312899301101979
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,194
    The sun is setting on traditional retirement

    https://www.ft.com/content/19286bbf-d98e-4852-bfe9-e18ce4d64af2
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,194
    edited October 19
    Andy_JS said:

    A slight problem has arisen.

    "Who Is Favored To Win Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral Votes?
    Trump wins 51 times out of 100in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.
    Harris wins 49 times out of 100."

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/pennsylvania/

    All that tells you is that they have a model and they've measured how uncertain it is. It has no connection to the probability that the model is true.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,194
    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
    The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
    Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.

    See also: the rest of human history.

    Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,850
    Good morning, everyone.

    Not my area at all, but is the story of Egyptian slavery of the Jews actually accurate?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304

    America’s equivalent of Martin Lewis has endorsed Trump.

    https://x.com/joma_gc/status/1847312899301101979

    And Martin Lewis backed Remain.

    (Albeit his piece on it was properly nuanced.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,850
    Betting Post

    F1: backed Sainz at 16 each way to top qualifying. He was 5th in sprint qualifying but 3rd to 5th were covered by four-hundredths of a second.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304
    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
    The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
    Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.

    See also: the rest of human history.

    Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
    God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.

    So you can be assured that God approves of all pain and suffering as it is for the greater good.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,910
    edited October 19
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    This thread has got both illuminating anf weird.
    I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.

    The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.

    To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
    I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.

    The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
    Yes, I agree. I've just returned from Naples. Everywhere, you see little shrines, where people burn candles and lay flowers.
    My mother-in-law went on a cruise. It was staffed - as these things are - by Indonesians. In a friendly conversation, they asked her what religion she was - she replied she was an atheist. "But who do you pray to?" They were not bothered that she might pray to a different God, but deeply troubled, and incomprehending, that she might not have one at all.
    Atheism and agnosticism is more common that @Sean_F suggests.

    The majority (probably close to 70%) of people in both China and Japan identify as secular, atheist or agnostic. Shinto and Buddhism are increasingly cultural identification - like me celebrating Christmas - than firm religious belief. And South Korea is not far behind those two.

    South American has also seen a big uptick in atheism/agnosticism. For example, in Uruguay, around 40% of the population is either atheist, agnostic, or non-religious. Chile has also seen a rise in irreligion, with about 36% of the population identifying as non-religious in 2022.

    Now, sure, there are still some deeply religious countries out there (in Africa or Asia). But then again, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland used to be highly religious, and they certainly aren't anymore.
    China and Japan are declining population wise and economically as are most of the non religious western nations.

    The fastest growth and highest level of optimism in the world is in more religious nations in Africa and Singapore and India and the UAE etc.

    72% of Italians say they are religious as do 71% of Greeks, 73% of Mexicans and 72% of Portuguese, so you are wrong on that too
    https://ceoworld.biz/2024/04/08/worlds-most-and-least-religious-countries-2024/
    54% of Irish also say they feel religious still
    A pretty useless poll. What was the question actually asked? What indicator was used? "Do you feel religious?"
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,910
    I sometimes ask people if they are Roman Catholic (in one of the counties mentioned above) and the most common answer is "I was baptised into it".
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,243
    edited October 19
    Andy_JS said:

    Is the US election really in just two and half weeks' time? It felt like it would never arrive.

    Budget, new Tory leader, bonfire night, Halloween and US election all within a week.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,415
    edited October 19

    Good morning, everyone.

    Not my area at all, but is the story of Egyptian slavery of the Jews actually accurate?

    It’s hard to say that the Jews really existed, as a people/religion, prior to the Babylonian captivity. Prior to that, I’d say they were a number of mostly pagan Canaanite tribes (and even within the Old Testament, there’s plenty of evidence for their worshipping Canaanite deities and practising child sacrifice). Yahweh was likely worshipped along with Baal, Chemosh, Astarte, etc.

    In exile, the people had to sit down, rationalise what had happened to them, and work out how to preserve their identity.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,415
    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
    The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
    Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.

    See also: the rest of human history.

    Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
    I thought the hurricane was the work of the Deep State, like Jewish space lasers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,837
    Sean_F said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
    The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
    Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.

    See also: the rest of human history.

    Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
    I thought the hurricane was the work of the Deep State, like Jewish space lasers.
    God has no hands other than our hands 🙌
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Trump says Harris will ban cows.
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1847335359325381088
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
    The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
    Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.

    See also: the rest of human history.

    Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
    God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.

    So you can be assured that God approves of all pain and suffering as it is for the greater good.
    If you really want to ruin an english middle class dinner party say you dont agree with abortion

    It's a cracker
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,949
    Nigelb said:

    Trump says Harris will ban cows.
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1847335359325381088

    I suspect he is talking a load of bull.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,949

    America’s equivalent of Martin Lewis has endorsed Trump.

    https://x.com/joma_gc/status/1847312899301101979

    Conservative, Evangelical Christian whose company has had lawsuits for things like an employee being a lesbian or another having a child out of wedlock, supports Trump. Shocked.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,479
    Andy_JS said:

    Is the US election really in just two and half weeks' time? It felt like it would never arrive.

    If MoonRabbit and Gareth are right and the orange haired loon wins, the next one *will* never arrive.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,479
    Nigelb said:

    Trump says Harris will ban cows.
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1847335359325381088

    She’s going to eliminate the bullshit!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,415
    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is the US election really in just two and half weeks' time? It felt like it would never arrive.

    If MoonRabbit and Gareth are right and the orange haired loon wins, the next one *will* never arrive.
    *If* the polling is correct, the orange shit stain will win.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,307
    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
    The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
    Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.

    See also: the rest of human history.

    Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
    God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.

    So you can be assured that God approves of all pain and suffering as it is for the greater good.
    Which might be fair enough. My children moan massively about the suffering the experience from vaccination injections, but they are better than the alternative.

    So it's not a question of concept but of scale- we look at the enormous sufferings in the world and think "if there is a God, there must be a way for Him to stop that". Perhaps there is, but the price tag is too great.

    See also the pre-Budget debate. There is lots of talk about all the awful things that Reeves and Starmer are about to do to us all. There's rather less talk about the supposed pain-free alternative. Which makes me suspect that there isn't one, and that Sunak and Hunt were bullshitting for Britain from about the moment of the first NI cut.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,209
    Interesting article on the Chagos deal supporting the obvious theory that it was a stitch-up by the Americans. I hadn't realised USA like Mauritius had requested a ruling from the international court.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/68245/the-chagos-sovereignty-deal-shows-the-uks-legal-and-diplomatic-weakness
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,479
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is the US election really in just two and half weeks' time? It felt like it would never arrive.

    If MoonRabbit and Gareth are right and the orange haired loon wins, the next one *will* never arrive.
    *If* the polling is correct, the orange shit stain will win.
    If the polling is correct, something strange has happened to mathematics given how wildly different they all are.

    If the more reputable polls are correct he will lose.

    If they are out by the same margin as before he might win.

    The only thing we can say for sure is that it’s close.

    In an election where one side wasn’t frantically rigging the system to try to win it probably wouldn’t be given how much of a loon one candidate has become, but unfortunately a large chunk of America has decided it’s had enough of democracy.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,413

    I see the deputy of Hamas is hiding out in Qatar.

    not sure that will help him much
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,243
    If pay per mile for EVs is introduced, what on earth happens if you take your motor out to the continent ?
    Are miles on Dutch and French roads charged ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,850
    Mr. Pulpstar, or the flipside, will foreign lorries be tracked and taxed here?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,413
    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.

    I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.

    However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
    Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
    Go on...?
    You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
    Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...

    I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
    I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
    The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
    Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
    The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
    utter bollox
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Kentucky man declared brain dead wakes up during organ harvesting

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/18/kentucky-man-wakes-up-organ-harvesting
    A man who had gone into cardiac arrest and been declared brain dead woke up as surgeons in his home state of Kentucky were in the middle of harvesting his organs for donation, his family has told media outlets...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    Trump has the mo. Brace
This discussion has been closed.