On topic for a change - surely the SNP should be expecting more than 4 gains from Labour? My guess right now would be some swingback, but it would need to be pretty huge to stop the Nats entirely. Also, far too much is being made of Jim Murphy's importance. By far the most important figure for Labour in Scotland in the GE will be Ed Miliband.
I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.
For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.
Well personally I think you're wrong, and I think they have it exactly right on that issue. Whether or not gay marriage/the reclassification of marriage is a good thing (I believe on balance it is -but the jury is out), what is certain is that it wasn't a natural evolution from civil partnerships, there was no groundswell of public support; there was no long term campaign by the gay community for marriage equality, and the simultaneous introduction of this legislation on to the statute book in several countries suggests that the policy came from above rather than below, potentially as a step toward the criminalisation of elements of the expression of religious belief.
UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.
It did come from above not below. From the EU or to be more precise it's sister institution the Council of Europe, as Christoper "Barkworth" Booker explains:
I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.
For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.
Well personally I think you're wrong, and I think they have it exactly right on that issue. Whether or not gay marriage/the reclassification of marriage is a good thing (I believe on balance it is -but the jury is out), what is certain is that it wasn't a natural evolution from civil partnerships, there was no groundswell of public support; there was no long term campaign by the gay community for marriage equality, and the simultaneous introduction of this legislation on to the statute book in several countries suggests that the policy came from above rather than below, potentially as a step toward the criminalisation of elements of the expression of religious belief.
UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.
No public support for same-sex marriage eh?
People have been generally more in favour of it than opposed to it, usually a majority.
Anecdote vs Polling evidence
55% of the voters supported same sex marriage in May 2013
OK, looks like YG and ComRes are the only weekend polls, so it's that time of the week again, when we at the Sunil on Sunday release our ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week). There were nine polls with field-work end-dates from 7th to 13th Dec, with a total weighted sample of 11,776.
* Biggest ever weekly jump in Tory score in ELBOW * Lab also up despite this, but much less than Tories - highest Lab score since mid Oct * Joint-lowest score for UKIP since Clacton * LDs also up a touch, best score for a month
I have just caught up with Sunday Politics Show and the BBC's idea of an impartial show is to have two hacks from the Guardian (Nick and Polly) and 1 from the FT. How does a paper with a tiny print sale such as the Guardian justify two Labour supporting hacks giving the UK the "benefit" of their opinions?
I thought it was odd that they had two Guardianistas on today (though I don't mind Watt as at least he's a correspondent). It'd be interesting to see a VI poll of people who watch that show - and other politics shows. My guess is UKIP wouldn't be doing quite so well.
Labour supporters dominate the hacks on the show. Usually instead of Polly we have Helen Lewis* from the New Statesman. The New Statesman was described by John Pienaar (once offered a job by Miliband) as a "centre left magazine".... There is no centre in the New Statesman it is a socialist haven.
*briefly known as Helen Lewis-Hasteley
I preferred it when Rowenna Davis was a regular. Hopefully she'll return after she loses Southampton Itchen.
Hello, Avery ?
Avery was not the only Tory whose heart was Itchen for Rowena.
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
There is also an ev-psych explanation for the tenacity of human homosexuality: it is possible that gay sons benefit the human species by providing non sexually competitive males - Uncle Montys - who selflessly look after their nephews and nieces, as the best way of ensuring their own "genetic survival" .
I've personally witnessed this. Gay uncles can be incredibly caring for the offspring of their siblings.
LuckyGuy Macmillan spent half his premiership reading Trollope in the Garden of No 10, and he is generally considered an above average PM
I don't know much about his Premiership, but his time strikes me as a period of plenty when you could get away with that. Cameron himself would have probably come out of the 50's/60's smelling of roses. Which isn't to say it wasn't a waste.
Out of curiosity, and without going into too many details that I likely won't understand, does your model incorporate dynamic effects on the petroleum industries? For instance, does it take into account possible reductions in the rate of expansion of shale production in the USA with a fall in the crude price? Or is it a more static adjustment?
Firstly, and re Japan: the reactors are coming back on stream only very slowly, and the country's dependence on imported natural gas and oil is very high. To put in context, every day, they need to import 4.5 million barrels of crude oil. A $50 difference (as it is at $65 vs $115) is more than a $200m a day saving that is added to the net exports line of GDP calculations. Japanese natural gas imports, are mostly on long-term oil linked contracts, so - with a delay, and based on JCC pricing rather than on Brent - their substantial gas import bills come down too. I haven't modelled lower coal import costs for Japan (or anyone else), however, the prices of different forms of energy do tend to move in lock step, and if the price of oil and gas decline then there will probably be a corresponding decline in coal prices.
Secondly, regarding the US: I had previously modelled 1.3m barrels of incremental supply out of the US (1m on-shore tight/shale, 300k Gulf of Mexico). With the lower price, this is probably going to be around 0.6-0.8m barrels, and therefore the GDP estimate for 2015 includes this reduction.
"Oh I agree. I would love to see UKIP come out strongly against the new laws.
Unfortunately as much as I am sure there is a small Libertarian clique in UKIP that would be over the moon (I was going to say champing at the bit but that seemed a little obvious as a joke) about such a stand, I suspect that there is truth in the claims that UKIP has a lot of very conservative members and supporters who would not agree with such a principled position.
So I am not holding my breath - either voluntarily or with a ligature - for such a change."
That's a shame. I was kinda hoping that UKIP, being so patriotic and all, would at least be fervently supportive of SPANKING. It is, let us remember, Le Vice Anglais.
Moreover, it would be a politically unique and opportune *position*. Fifty Shades of Grey is, according to some, the best selling book in history.
UKIP does not purport to represent the public school types - who, of course, would like spanking to be made mandatory !
LuckyGuy Indeed, had their been no crash in 2008 and the public finances not been in such a poor state Cameron could have afforded to be Macmillan 2 and remain popular
I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.
For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.
Well personally I think you're wrong, and I think they have it exactly right on that issue. Whether or not gay marriage/the reclassification of marriage is a good thing (I believe on balance it is -but the jury is out), what is certain is that it wasn't a natural evolution from civil partnerships, there was no groundswell of public support; there was no long term campaign by the gay community for marriage equality, and the simultaneous introduction of this legislation on to the statute book in several countries suggests that the policy came from above rather than below, potentially as a step toward the criminalisation of elements of the expression of religious belief.
UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.
No public support for same-sex marriage eh?
People have been generally more in favour of it than opposed to it, usually a majority.
Anecdote vs Polling evidence
55% of the voters supported same sex marriage in May 2013
Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received
"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "
Goodwin has indeed made quite a study of the BNP. I cannot think why he wants to do a study of kippers.
I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.
For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.
Well personally I think you're wrong, and I think they have it exactly right on that issue. Whether or not gay marriage/the reclassification of marriage is a good thing (I believe on balance it is -but the jury is out), what is certain is that it wasn't a natural evolution from civil partnerships, there was no groundswell of public support; there was no long term campaign by the gay community for marriage equality, and the simultaneous introduction of this legislation on to the statute book in several countries suggests that the policy came from above rather than below, potentially as a step toward the criminalisation of elements of the expression of religious belief.
UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.
No public support for same-sex marriage eh?
People have been generally more in favour of it than opposed to it, usually a majority.
Anecdote vs Polling evidence
55% of the voters supported same sex marriage in May 2013
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
There is also an ev-psych explanation for the tenacity of human homosexuality: it is possible that gay sons benefit the human species by providing non sexually competitive males - Uncle Montys - who selflessly look after their nephews and nieces, as the best way of ensuring their own "genetic survival" .
I've personally witnessed this. Gay uncles can be incredibly caring for the offspring of their siblings.
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
Not a great riposte. Very few diseases have been found to be genetic, your genes don't set out to kill you, cancer is likely to be caused by germs.
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
I've said we should have had a referendum on same sex marriage, just to show the homophobes how out of touch they were.
I seem to recall that Brian Souter arranged one in Scotland over Section 28 because the Scottish Parliament wouldn't have one.
31.8% of people in Scotland voted excluding spoilt ballots (as a comparison 42% voted in the UK Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 and 50% voted in the 2011 Scottish General Election.)
86.8% voted in favour of keeping Section 28, 13.2% in favour of repeal.
Amount of Votes in Favour of Keeping Section 28 in 2001: 1,096,011 Amount of Votes SNP got in 2011 Scot Parliament election: 902,915
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
There is also an ev-psych explanation for the tenacity of human homosexuality: it is possible that gay sons benefit the human species by providing non sexually competitive males - Uncle Montys - who selflessly look after their nephews and nieces, as the best way of ensuring their own "genetic survival" .
I've personally witnessed this. Gay uncles can be incredibly caring for the offspring of their siblings.
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
Not a great riposte. Very few diseases have been found to be genetic, your genes don't set out to kill you, cancer is likely to be caused by germs.
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
Precisely right - and (by the way), very eloquent phrased. You should blog.
What a nice thing to say - I'm very touched.
... Nonetheless, it is a mildly important point. Voters are simply BORED of the predictable, mainstream opinions of the established parties: thus the fracturing of the electorate....?
It's possible voters are simply FED UP with the after effects of the recession: thus looking for someone to blame.
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
There is also an ev-psych explanation for the tenacity of human homosexuality: it is possible that gay sons benefit the human species by providing non sexually competitive males - Uncle Montys - who selflessly look after their nephews and nieces, as the best way of ensuring their own "genetic survival" .
I've personally witnessed this. Gay uncles can be incredibly caring for the offspring of their siblings.
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
The party does nothing but reflect hobby horses. Just as any party does. Often these have wider support amongst the general public and sometimes they do not. But in the end any party is reflecting the views either of its wider membership or of its leadership. In both cases, unless they have endless votes on every issue, someone senior in the party is making a personal decision about which hobby horses should become party policy.
All I have done is express disappointment that the party has chosen what I consider to be the intellectually and morally inferior position.
And I am afraid your comments about the legislation being driven from above as a precursor to criminalisation of opinion is straying too far into tin foil hat territory for me.
That's fine - you obviously prefer to reserve your scrutiny for the party you ostensibly support.
Whatever the final tally of SNP seats in May, the net effect is going to be a vast swathe of marginal SNP - Labour seats in Scotlland. That in itself could make Labour squeamish about a second election in the autumn, if as seems to be the case, the movement away from Labour is a gradual process.
One thing that I am really curious about: how has Murphy taken a rock solid Tory seat and made it a rock solid Labour seat? Has he been helped by boundary changes or demographic shifts? It is remarkable to think of say a safe rural Tory seat becoming Bootle on the Wolds by virtue of the power of the candidate alone.
Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received
"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "
I've said we should have had a referendum on same sex marriage, just to show the homophobes how out of touch they were.
I seem to recall that Brian Souter arranged one in Scotland over Section 28 because the Scottish Parliament wouldn't have one.
31.8% of people in Scotland voted excluding spoilt ballots (as a comparison 42% voted in the UK Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 and 50% voted in the 2011 Scottish General Election.)
86.8% voted in favour of keeping Section 28, 13.2% in favour of repeal.
Amount of Votes in Favour of Keeping Section 28 in 2001: 1,096,011 Amount of Votes SNP got in 2011 Scot Parliament election: 902,915
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Scotland has always been (relatively speaking to England) backwards to homosexuality.
It was Thatcher who decriminalised homosexuality in Scotland, which was one of her earliest achievements as Prime Minister.
So prior to 1980, being gay in Scotland was a crime.
Some SNP MSPs have been accused by one of their own MEPS of being mean, angry bigots (when it comes to gay equality)
This isn't a dig at Scotland or the SNP, the SNP also have introduced same sex marriage.
I understand the various religious factors in play there.
The party does nothing but reflect hobby horses. Just as any party does. Often these have wider support amongst the general public and sometimes they do not. But in the end any party is reflecting the views either of its wider membership or of its leadership. In both cases, unless they have endless votes on every issue, someone senior in the party is making a personal decision about which hobby horses should become party policy.
All I have done is express disappointment that the party has chosen what I consider to be the intellectually and morally inferior position.
And I am afraid your comments about the legislation being driven from above as a precursor to criminalisation of opinion is straying too far into tin foil hat territory for me.
That's fine - you obviously prefer to reserve your scrutiny for the party you ostensibly support.
I don't think Richard has made any secret that his major concern is ensuring Britain leaves the EU. UKIP is a flag of convenience that best ensures that goal is achieved.
Why should he - or anyone else - sign up to "my party, right or wrong"?
I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.
For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.
Well personally I think you're wrong, and I think they have it exactly right on that issue. Whether or not gay marriage/the reclassification of marriage is a good thing (I believe on balance it is -but the jury is out), what is certain is that it wasn't a natural evolution from civil partnerships, there was no groundswell of public support; there was no long term campaign by the gay community for marriage equality, and the simultaneous introduction of this legislation on to the statute book in several countries suggests that the policy came from above rather than below, potentially as a step toward the criminalisation of elements of the expression of religious belief.
UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.
No public support for same-sex marriage eh?
People have been generally more in favour of it than opposed to it, usually a majority.
Anecdote vs Polling evidence
55% of the voters supported same sex marriage in May 2013
I have just caught up with Sunday Politics Show and the BBC's idea of an impartial show is to have two hacks from the Guardian (Nick and Polly) and 1 from the FT. How does a paper with a tiny print sale such as the Guardian justify two Labour supporting hacks giving the UK the "benefit" of their opinions?
I thought it was odd that they had two Guardianistas on today (though I don't mind Watt as at least he's a correspondent). It'd be interesting to see a VI poll of people who watch that show - and other politics shows. My guess is UKIP wouldn't be doing quite so well.
Labour supporters dominate the hacks on the show. Usually instead of Polly we have Helen Lewis* from the New Statesman. The New Statesman was described by John Pienaar (once offered a job by Miliband) as a "centre left magazine".... There is no centre in the New Statesman it is a socialist haven.
*briefly known as Helen Lewis-Hasteley
I preferred it when Rowenna Davis was a regular. Hopefully she'll return after she loses Southampton Itchen.
Hello, Avery ?
Avery was not the only Tory whose heart was Itchen for Rowena.
Who's Avery? Davis is 1/2 to win Southampton Itchen, I actually think that's a fair price and she'll probably win the seat.
Whatever the final tally of SNP seats in May, the net effect is going to be a vast swathe of marginal SNP - Labour seats in Scotlland. That in itself could make Labour squeamish about a second election in the autumn, if as seems to be the case, the movement away from Labour is a gradual process.
One thing that I am really curious about: how has Murphy taken a rock solid Tory seat and made it a rock solid Labour seat? Has he been helped by boundary changes or demographic shifts? It is remarkable to think of say a safe rural Tory seat becoming Bootle on the Wolds by virtue of the power of the candidate alone.
There is a clue here in PB. Scot Tories love Murphy !
At 34% each, Labour has 37 seats to SNP's 15. Only when the SNP goes above 36% that FPTP begins to play to their advantage.
I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.
For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.
Well personally I think you're wrong, and I think they have it exactly right on that issue. Whether or not gay marriage/the reclassification of marriage is a good thing (I believe on balance it is -but the jury is out), what is certain is that it wasn't a natural evolution from civil partnerships, there was no groundswell of public support; there was no long term campaign by the gay community for marriage equality, and the simultaneous introduction of this legislation on to the statute book in several countries suggests that the policy came from above rather than below, potentially as a step toward the criminalisation of elements of the expression of religious belief.
UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.
No public support for same-sex marriage eh?
People have been generally more in favour of it than opposed to it, usually a majority.
Anecdote vs Polling evidence
55% of the voters supported same sex marriage in May 2013
Whatever the final tally of SNP seats in May, the net effect is going to be a vast swathe of marginal SNP - Labour seats in Scotlland. That in itself could make Labour squeamish about a second election in the autumn, if as seems to be the case, the movement away from Labour is a gradual process.
One thing that I am really curious about: how has Murphy taken a rock solid Tory seat and made it a rock solid Labour seat? Has he been helped by boundary changes or demographic shifts? It is remarkable to think of say a safe rural Tory seat becoming Bootle on the Wolds by virtue of the power of the candidate alone.
The same has happened in reverse quite recently in England with the result that Crewe and Nantwich is now a fairly safe Conservative seat.
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
There is also an ev-psych explanation for the tenacity of human homosexuality: it is possible that gay sons benefit the human species by providing non sexually competitive males - Uncle Montys - who selflessly look after their nephews and nieces, as the best way of ensuring their own "genetic survival" .
I've personally witnessed this. Gay uncles can be incredibly caring for the offspring of their siblings.
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
Not a great riposte. Very few diseases have been found to be genetic, your genes don't set out to kill you, cancer is likely to be caused by germs.
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
We know what causes cancer. There are carcinogens present in our food, food packaging, soaps, shampoos, conditioners, moisturising creams, make up, sun block (which they advise us to slather on), deodorants, detergents, etc. There are also dangers inherent (believe it or not) in mammograms and underwired bras. Corporations and Governments prefer not to concentrate on cancer prevention -instead we get a massive and emotionally exhausting hunt for funding for a 'cure', with all its fun runs etc. I've always found this bizarre. We rip asbestos out of buildings at huge cost to remove the risk of asbestosis. But we don't even highlight the risks of Sulphates in cosmetics, or applaud products that don't use them.
I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.
For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.
Well personally I think you're wrong, and I think they have it exactly right on that issue. Whether or not gay marriage/the reclassification of marriage is a good thing (I believe on balance it is -but the jury is out), what is certain is that it wasn't a natural evolution from civil partnerships, there was no groundswell of public support; there was no long term campaign by the gay community for marriage equality, and the simultaneous introduction of this legislation on to the statute book in several countries suggests that the policy came from above rather than below, potentially as a step toward the criminalisation of elements of the expression of religious belief.
UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.
No public support for same-sex marriage eh?
People have been generally more in favour of it than opposed to it, usually a majority.
Anecdote vs Polling evidence
55% of the voters supported same sex marriage in May 2013
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
There is also an ev-psych explanation for the tenacity of human homosexuality: it is possible that gay sons benefit the human species by providing non sexually competitive males - Uncle Montys - who selflessly look after their nephews and nieces, as the best way of ensuring their own "genetic survival" .
I've personally witnessed this. Gay uncles can be incredibly caring for the offspring of their siblings.
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
Not a great riposte. Very few diseases have been found to be genetic, your genes don't set out to kill you, cancer is likely to be caused by germs.
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
We know what causes cancer. There are carcinogens present in our food, food packaging, soaps, shampoos, conditioners, moisturising creams, make up, sun block (which they advise us to slather on), deodorants, detergents, etc. There are also dangers inherent (believe it or not) in mammograms and underwired bras. Corporations and Governments prefer not to concentrate on cancer prevention -instead we get a massive and emotionally exhausting hunt for funding for a 'cure', with all its fun runs etc. I've always found this bizarre. We rip asbestos out of buildings at huge cost to remove the risk of asbestosis. But we don't even highlight the risks of Sulphates in cosmetics, or applaud products that don't use them.
Cancer will happen without those issues.
Ultimately, it only takes one or two replications with the wrong mutations... and if your immune system isn't paying attention... then cancer
The party does nothing but reflect hobby horses. Just as any party does. Often these have wider support amongst the general public and sometimes they do not. But in the end any party is reflecting the views either of its wider membership or of its leadership. In both cases, unless they have endless votes on every issue, someone senior in the party is making a personal decision about which hobby horses should become party policy.
All I have done is express disappointment that the party has chosen what I consider to be the intellectually and morally inferior position.
And I am afraid your comments about the legislation being driven from above as a precursor to criminalisation of opinion is straying too far into tin foil hat territory for me.
That's fine - you obviously prefer to reserve your scrutiny for the party you ostensibly support.
I don't think Richard has made any secret that his major concern is ensuring Britain leaves the EU. UKIP is a flag of convenience that best ensures that goal is achieved.
Why should he - or anyone else - sign up to "my party, right or wrong"?
He shouldn't, and I regret if my post sounded that way. I just don't think he should sign up to "my international agenda right or wrong" either.
OK, l... we at the Sunil on Sunday release our ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week). There were nine polls with field-work end-dates from 7th to 13th Dec, with a total weighted sample of 11,776.
I do not know what any of this means but Labour on or about 33% cannot be good for them. As the governing party the tories must be hoping to get back to 36-37%. You would think that labour have nowhere to go and the governing parties have a rising economic trend, with low oil prices.
I've said we should have had a referendum on same sex marriage, just to show the homophobes how out of touch they were.
Yes, put a big clear dividing line between sections of society and call those who dont share your views names
How pleasant
If only I had called them peasants or chinkies, then you'd be defending me.
Why do you say that? I haven't defended anyone who said those things
Perhaps you can direct me to a post of yours criticising him.
I neither criticised nor defended him, so what?
The fact you criticised me for calling people homophobes, but didn't get upset over someone called people chinkies or peasants, but you were quite rightly exercised by the Tories going for a dog whistle against Timur Aker.
Matthew 7:5
Now I'm off to watch Homeland, and I know you like to have the last word, as you're never wrong, knock yourself out.
I find it bizarre that anyone would care what consenting adults do in the comfort of their own home.
And that includes: pornography, homosexuality, heroin, video games, etc. etc. etc.
If Country A and Country B were at war, and Country A air-dropped tonnes of heroin (or any other addictive intoxicant) on Country B in order to subdue the populace, would Country B be justified in introducing strong regulations against it's possession, use, sale, etc.?
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
There is also an ev-psych explanation for the tenacity of human homosexuality: it is possible that gay sons benefit the human species by providing non sexually competitive males - Uncle Montys - who selflessly look after their nephews and nieces, as the best way of ensuring their own "genetic survival" .
I've personally witnessed this. Gay uncles can be incredibly caring for the offspring of their siblings.
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
Not a great riposte. Very few diseases have been found to be genetic, your genes don't set out to kill you, cancer is likely to be caused by germs.
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
We know what causes cancer. There are carcinogens present in our food, food packaging, soaps, shampoos, conditioners, moisturising creams, make up, sun block (which they advise us to slather on), deodorants, detergents, etc. There are also dangers inherent (believe it or not) in mammograms and underwired bras. Corporations and Governments prefer not to concentrate on cancer prevention -instead we get a massive and emotionally exhausting hunt for funding for a 'cure', with all its fun runs etc. I've always found this bizarre. We rip asbestos out of buildings at huge cost to remove the risk of asbestosis. But we don't even highlight the risks of Sulphates in cosmetics, or applaud products that don't use them.
Cancer will happen without those issues.
Ultimately, it only takes one or two replications with the wrong mutations... and if your immune system isn't paying attention... then cancer
I doubt you can prove that it will happen, and you certainly can't prove it will happen as soon.
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced througheir sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
There is also an ev-psych explanation for the tenacity of human homosexuality: it is possible that gay sons benefit the human species by providing non sexually competitive males - Uncle Montys - who selflessly look after their nephews and nieces, as the best way of ensuring their own "genetic survival" .
I've personally witnessed this. Gay uncles can be incredibly caring for the offspring of their siblings.
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
Not a great riposte. Very few diseases have been found to be genetic, your genes don't set out to kill you, cancer is likely to be caused by germs.
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
We know what causes cancer. There are carcinogens present in our food, food packaging, soaps, shampoos, conditioners, moisturising creams, make up, sun block (which they advise us to slather on), deodorants, detergents, etc. There are also dangers inherent (believe it or not) in mammograms and underwired bras. Corporations and Governments prefer not to concentrate on cancer prevention -instead we get a massive and emotionally exhausting hunt for funding for a 'cure', with all its fun runs etc. I've always found this bizarre. We rip asbestos out of buildings at huge cost to remove the risk of asbestosis. But we don't even highlight the risks of Sulphates in cosmetics, or applaud products that don't use them.
Gibberish, we just know some of the causes of some cancers. No one who knows anything about it thinks cancers are more than 50% environmentally caused. No one is looking for "a 'cure'" (not sure what your quote marks are supposed to imply, they are looking for improvements and extensions of the large and growing number of cures and ameliorations already available to us. Fun runs are not a major part of that enterprise.
And surely you believe that Big Pharma already has the 'cure' but is suppressing it in the interest of its shareholders?
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
Not a great riposte. Very few diseases have been found to be genetic, your genes don't set out to kill you, cancer is likely to be caused by germs.
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
We know what causes cancer. There are carcinogens present in our food, food packaging, soaps, shampoos, conditioners, moisturising creams, make up, sun block (which they advise us to slather on), deodorants, detergents, etc. There are also dangers inherent (believe it or not) in mammograms and underwired bras. Corporations and Governments prefer not to concentrate on cancer prevention -instead we get a massive and emotionally exhausting hunt for funding for a 'cure', with all its fun runs etc. I've always found this bizarre. We rip asbestos out of buildings at huge cost to remove the risk of asbestosis. But we don't even highlight the risks of Sulphates in cosmetics, or applaud products that don't use them.
It's a complex area I certainly don't fully understand. Ewald contended that there are only three fundamental causes of disease. First, he noted, there are nonliving environmental agents like radiation, poisons, and nutrition. Too many cigarettes cause lung cancer; too little Vitamin D causes rickets. Second, Ewald continued, there are infections. Long ago, people figured out that smallpox, measles, and chicken pox passed from one person to another. Since then, an ever-growing number of diseases have been shown to be induced by bacteria, viruses, or protozoa. Third, and trendiest, there are hereditary causes. The Human Genome Project has been widely advertised as eventually leading to cures for many diseases, such as breast cancer. Ewald observed, though, "If one identical twin gets breast cancer, the other's likelihood of contracting it is only around 10% to 20%. This suggests that genes are not the whole story."
The fact you criticised me for calling people homophobes, but didn't get upset over someone called people chinkies or peasants, but you were quite rightly exercised by the Tories going for a dog whistle against Timur Aker.
Matthew 7:5
Now I'm off to watch Homeland, and I know you like to have the last word, as you're never wrong, knock yourself out.
Considering your anti-Catholicism on this site, it is ludicrous of you to try and claim the moral high ground on this issue.
Considering gay rights campaigners behaviour during the Papal Visit, it is even more ludicrous for them to.
I find it bizarre that anyone would care what consenting adults do in the comfort of their own home.
And that includes: pornography, homosexuality, heroin, video games, etc. etc. etc.
If Country A and Country B were at war, and Country A air-dropped tonnes of heroin (or any other addictive intoxicant) on Country B in order to subdue the populace, would Country B be justified in introducing strong regulations against it's possession, use, sale, etc.?
I've said we should have had a referendum on same sex marriage, just to show the homophobes how out of touch they were.
I seem to recall that Brian Souter arranged one in Scotland over Section 28 because the Scottish Parliament wouldn't have one.
31.8% of people in Scotland voted excluding spoilt ballots (as a comparison 42% voted in the UK Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 and 50% voted in the 2011 Scottish General Election.)
86.8% voted in favour of keeping Section 28, 13.2% in favour of repeal.
Amount of Votes in Favour of Keeping Section 28 in 2001: 1,096,011 Amount of Votes SNP got in 2011 Scot Parliament election: 902,915
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Scotland has always been (relatively speaking to England) backwards to homosexuality.
It was Thatcher who decriminalised homosexuality in Scotland, which was one of her earliest achievements as Prime Minister.
So prior to 1980, being gay in Scotland was a crime.
Some SNP MSPs have been accused by one of their own MEPS of being mean, angry bigots (when it comes to gay equality)
This isn't a dig at Scotland or the SNP, the SNP also have introduced same sex marriage.
I understand the various religious factors in play there.
Not sure if it is more backward now but yes, both issues were very much cross party. There were some Labour MSPs very unhappy with same-sex marriage for instance.
Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received
"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "
Yep, filled it in last night.
Prof. Matthew Goodwin is the most respected researcher into UKIP and is no right-winger, but that doesn't seem to affect his academic judgment.
I hope I have completely confused them by strongly identifying with East Europeans (i.e. Catholic Poles) but being generally favourable to UKIP's policies, such as they are.
Personally, and since it is one of the subjects used to attack UKIP so regularly, I was sorry they asked no questions about attitudes to sexuality. Maybe the organisation is worried about what the response would be - either too pro-homosexuality for them in which case they would have to consider changing policy or too anti-homosexuality in which case the results would embarrass them. Either way it was rather an obvious omission given the range of subjects they otherwise ask opinion on.
Consider changing which policy?
I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.
For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.
i want to see the UKIP policy on SPANKING. Also FACE SITTING, CANING, BONDAGE, and SQUIRTING.
Can you elucidate?
I am entirely serious. It would be nice if one serious political party had the cullions to call the New Porn Laws for what they are: utterly ridiculous.
I think UKIP would be opposed to ostentatious spanking.
These laws by your standards have been 'ridiculous' for quite some time and have been governed as such by the BBFC. What individuals do in private is their business, but what people transmit as business is subject to classification. Its not new. it may be right nor wrong, interesting or worthless, but its not new and as such electronic media classification of it is hardly surprising.
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
Not a great riposte. Very few diseases have been found to be genetic, your genes don't set out to kill you, cancer is likely to be caused by germs.
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
Not a great riposte. Very few diseases have been found to be genetic, your genes don't set out to kill you, cancer is likely to be caused by germs.
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
So *gayness* is a "disease"?
Brilliant. Keep going.
It's not in a genes interest, as a prototype organism, to end it's life before reproduction
The fact you criticised me for calling people homophobes, but didn't get upset over someone called people chinkies or peasants, but you were quite rightly exercised by the Tories going for a dog whistle against Timur Aker.
Matthew 7:5
Now I'm off to watch Homeland, and I know you like to have the last word, as you're never wrong, knock yourself out.
Considering your anti-Catholicism on this site, it is ludicrous of you to try and claim the moral high ground on this issue.
Considering gay rights campaigners behaviour during the Papal Visit, it is even more ludicrous for them to.
The moral high ground is not determined by the Catholic church least of all when it institutionally puts the reputation of the church above the interests of abused children.
Further gay rights campaigners are entitled to protest in this country. The Pope might consider himself infallible but others beg to differ.
Gibberish, we just know some of the causes of some cancers. No one who knows anything about it thinks cancers are more than 50% environmentally caused. No one is looking for "a 'cure'" (not sure what your quote marks are supposed to imply, they are looking for improvements and extensions of the large and growing number of cures and ameliorations already available to us. Fun runs are not a major part of that enterprise.
And surely you believe that Big Pharma already has the 'cure' but is suppressing it in the interest of its shareholders?
-So (according to you) we have a chance of radically reducing up to 50% of the cause of cancer. Thanks for making my point for me.
-Precisely. There seems to be no prospect of a cure (the way there was for smallpox), merely an ever growing number of therapies of varying success -hence my inverted commas. However, these therapies are universally lucrative to the pharmaceutical industry. Unlike prevention, which is not lucrative to anyone -quite the opposite. Thanks for making my point for me x2
-My point about 'Fun Runs' is that I find it somewhat sad to see people put so much effort and emotion into fundraising for a cure, when they daily bathe in, apply, eat, and wear the cause (sorry, 50% of the cause), through ignorance.
-Now you're attacking things I haven't even said. Pitiable.
re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.
There is also an ev-psych explanation for the tenacity of human homosexuality: it is possible that gay sons benefit the human species by providing non sexually competitive males - Uncle Montys - who selflessly look after their nephews and nieces, as the best way of ensuring their own "genetic survival" .
I've personally witnessed this. Gay uncles can be incredibly caring for the offspring of their siblings.
Fecking nonsense. Of course homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic. Everything is partly or wholly genetic.
Having read some of your recent comment, it occurs to me that you are, in fact, a cretin. Cretinism is also, I believe, heritable. So at least you know who to blame.
Not a great riposte. Very few diseases have been found to be genetic, your genes don't set out to kill you, cancer is likely to be caused by germs.
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
We know what causes cancer. There are carcinogens present in our food, food packaging, soaps, shampoos, conditioners, moisturising creams, make up, sun block (which they advise us to slather on), deodorants, detergents, etc. There are also dangers inherent (believe it or not) in mammograms and underwired bras. Corporations and Governments prefer not to concentrate on cancer prevention -instead we get a massive and emotionally exhausting hunt for funding for a 'cure', with all its fun runs etc. I've always found this bizarre. We rip asbestos out of buildings at huge cost to remove the risk of asbestosis. But we don't even highlight the risks of Sulphates in cosmetics, or applaud products that don't use them.
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
I find it bizarre that anyone would care what consenting adults do in the comfort of their own home.
And that includes: pornography, homosexuality, heroin, video games, etc. etc. etc.
If Country A and Country B were at war, and Country A air-dropped tonnes of heroin (or any other addictive intoxicant) on Country B in order to subdue the populace, would Country B be justified in introducing strong regulations against it's possession, use, sale, etc.?
I've said we should have had a referendum on same sex marriage, just to show the homophobes how out of touch they were.
Yes, put a big clear dividing line between sections of society and call those who dont share your views names
How pleasant
If only I had called them peasants or chinkies, then you'd be defending me.
Why do you say that? I haven't defended anyone who said those things
Perhaps you can direct me to a post of yours criticising him.
I neither criticised nor defended him, so what?
The fact you criticised me for calling people homophobes, but didn't get upset over someone called people chinkies or peasants, but you were quite rightly exercised by the Tories going for a dog whistle against Timur Aker.
Matthew 7:5
Now I'm off to watch Homeland, and I know you like to have the last word, as you're never wrong, knock yourself out.
Ok love to win arguments vs you, though it is becoming tiresomely easy
I criticised people on here for not criticising the Thurrock dog whistle comments only because they would have done if it were ukip doing the dog whistling. Wrong as I thought it was, I didn't particularly criticise the Tory campaign. I was noting the double standards on here
Also, Kerry Smith doesn't seem a particularly savoury character, though I've never met him or noticed anything else he had said. If he were posting on here in a holier then thou manner then I would criticise him for what he is reported to have said. You. however like to criticise people tirelessly for any comment you regard as offensive yet make lots of provocative, trolling and insulting comments yourself...
Hence I pull you up for your double standards and hypocrisy
I find it bizarre that anyone would care what consenting adults do in the comfort of their own home.
And that includes: pornography, homosexuality, heroin, video games, etc. etc. etc.
If Country A and Country B were at war, and Country A air-dropped tonnes of heroin (or any other addictive intoxicant) on Country B in order to subdue the populace, would Country B be justified in introducing strong regulations against it's possession, use, sale, etc.?
Obviously no.
Not so much liberalism as suicide then.
It's the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Liberalism praises liberty and thinks we should take steps to improve it, after considering other effects. Libertarianism is a extremist philosophy that believes the only source impeding liberty is the government, and thus wants to restrict government as much as possible, whatever the consequences.
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and Sodium Lauryl Sulphate. And I never said that they were 'on the scale' of asbestos, but they are things we use every single day, in multiple different ways. SLS and SLES are just cheap chemicals discovered in the 60's that cause lather. But try and find a single mainstream cleanliness product that doesn't contain them.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Its not in a genes interest, as a prototype organism, to end it's life before reproduction
Nonsense. If an organism helps assist in passing on its genetics indirectly by ensuring their survival then that is mission accomplished evolutionarily. Nieces and nephews provide this passing on of genetics.
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Post a peer reviewed article from a reputable source which says they aren't......
Whatever the final tally of SNP seats in May, the net effect is going to be a vast swathe of marginal SNP - Labour seats in Scotlland. That in itself could make Labour squeamish about a second election in the autumn, if as seems to be the case, the movement away from Labour is a gradual process.
One thing that I am really curious about: how has Murphy taken a rock solid Tory seat and made it a rock solid Labour seat? Has he been helped by boundary changes or demographic shifts? It is remarkable to think of say a safe rural Tory seat becoming Bootle on the Wolds by virtue of the power of the candidate alone.
There have been hardly any boundary changes in Eastwood / East Renfrewshire since it was a safe Tory seat. The Alliance were second in the 1980s so it looks like most of that vote has shifted decisively to Labour since then.
I've said we should have had a referendum on same sex marriage, just to show the homophobes how out of touch they were.
I seem to recall that Brian Souter arranged one in Scotland over Section 28 because the Scottish Parliament wouldn't have one.
31.8% of people in Scotland voted excluding spoilt ballots (as a comparison 42% voted in the UK Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 and 50% voted in the 2011 Scottish General Election.)
86.8% voted in favour of keeping Section 28, 13.2% in favour of repeal.
Amount of Votes in Favour of Keeping Section 28 in 2001: 1,096,011 Amount of Votes SNP got in 2011 Scot Parliament election: 902,915
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Scotland has always been (relatively speaking to England) backwards to homosexuality.
It was Thatcher who decriminalised homosexuality in Scotland, which was one of her earliest achievements as Prime Minister.
So prior to 1980, being gay in Scotland was a crime.
Some SNP MSPs have been accused by one of their own MEPS of being mean, angry bigots (when it comes to gay equality)
This isn't a dig at Scotland or the SNP, the SNP also have introduced same sex marriage.
I understand the various religious factors in play there.
Not sure if it is more backward now but yes, both issues were very much cross party. There were some Labour MSPs very unhappy with same-sex marriage for instance.
It wasn't SNP MPs who voted against the English gay marriage bill. A big percentage of no votes came from Scottish Labour MPs. Pretty despicable.
I find it bizarre that anyone would care what consenting adults do in the comfort of their own home.
And that includes: pornography, homosexuality, heroin, video games, etc. etc. etc.
If Country A and Country B were at war, and Country A air-dropped tonnes of heroin (or any other addictive intoxicant) on Country B in order to subdue the populace, would Country B be justified in introducing strong regulations against it's possession, use, sale, etc.?
Obviously no.
Not so much liberalism as suicide then.
It's the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Liberalism praises liberty and thinks we should take steps to improve it, after considering other effects. Libertarianism is a extremist philosophy that believes the only source impeding liberty is the government, and thus wants to restrict government as much as possible, whatever the consequences.
Yes. It's a mistaken concept of freedom. The denizens of Hogarth's Gin Lane were exercising their personal freedom of action, but were not free in any meaningful sense. Today, Habeus Corpus and God knows what else of our fundamental constitutional rights are being swept away before our eyes, but even on this site, people are more exercised by these porn restrictions.
I find it bizarre that anyone would care what consenting adults do in the comfort of their own home.
And that includes: pornography, homosexuality, heroin, video games, etc. etc. etc.
If Country A and Country B were at war, and Country A air-dropped tonnes of heroin (or any other addictive intoxicant) on Country B in order to subdue the populace, would Country B be justified in introducing strong regulations against it's possession, use, sale, etc.?
Obviously no.
Not so much liberalism as suicide then.
It's the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Liberalism praises liberty and thinks we should take steps to improve it, after considering other effects. Libertarianism is a extremist philosophy that believes the only source impeding liberty is the government, and thus wants to restrict government as much as possible, whatever the consequences.
You are 10x more likely to die at the hand of your own government than at the hands of another.
People look to government like it is a panacea. Strong government is worshipped. It is genuinely scary how many people seem to think that if 51% of the population wants to torture the other 49%, then that's 'OK' and that democracy.
The state is like cancer. And we need to do all we can to restrict its spread.
I find it bizarre that anyone would care what consenting adults do in the comfort of their own home.
And that includes: pornography, homosexuality, heroin, video games, etc. etc. etc.
If Country A and Country B were at war, and Country A air-dropped tonnes of heroin (or any other addictive intoxicant) on Country B in order to subdue the populace, would Country B be justified in introducing strong regulations against it's possession, use, sale, etc.?
Obviously no.
Not so much liberalism as suicide then.
It's the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Liberalism praises liberty and thinks we should take steps to improve it, after considering other effects. Libertarianism is a extremist philosophy that believes the only source impeding liberty is the government, and thus wants to restrict government as much as possible, whatever the consequences.
Yes. It's a mistaken concept of freedom. The denizens of Hogarth's Gin Lane were exercising their personal freedom of action, but were not free in any meaningful sense. Today, Habeus Corpus and God knows what else of our fundamental constitutional rights are being swept away before our eyes, but even on this site, people are more exercised by these porn restrictions.
I think there is a very high degree of overlap between those who oppose the extension of the porn laws, those who wish the right to silence should have been preserved, those who oppose US torture of terrorist suspects, and those who oppose detention without trial.
It's not in a genes interest, as a prototype organism, to end it's life before reproduction
You're thinking on the level of the individual not the gene. It's total transmission to the next generation that counts for the genes, not whether some individuals fail to reproduce. Think of ants, bees and wasps (admittedly with some very odd genetics), in which all but a very few fail to reproduce directly, but share in the success of their siblings. Or - if I recall rightly - scrub jays where the young, after they fledge, hang around and help mum and dad bring up their siblings - more efficient then trying to reproduce straight away, in a difficult environment (and I suspect they also learn on the job to their future benefit).
And SeanT is quite right - everything is partly or wholly genetic. Including the mechanisms to respond to the environmental situation in which an individual organism finds itself. E.g. grow hair if in winter: is that hair innate or environmental? Neither or both, of course. Perfectly plausibly grow up gay if in certain social/familial contexts (I am not up to date in current thinking), and so on and so forth. The classic case is IIRC the white-crowned sparrow. It learns its song from its parents - it is not instinctive - but that learning is genetically mediated: it learns daddy's song much more quickly and precisely than, say, the American robin in the nest next door (no idea if they actually live in the same habitat but you get the idea).
Add to that plain errors (including the effect of frustration, vide the fur seals and the unfortunate penguins discussed here a few weeks back) and the rather obvious principle of jumping anything that moves and might be a female, just in case, and you're already a long way to outlining a workable theory of animal homosexuality. No idea what the current state of play is but on the basic issues of genetics and genotype/phenotype interactions, Richard Dawkins and Matt Ridley discuss such issues pretty well.
I've said we should have had a referendum on same sex marriage, just to show the homophobes how out of touch they were.
I seem to recall that Brian Souter arranged one in Scotland over Section 28 because the Scottish Parliament wouldn't have one.
31.8% of people in Scotland voted excluding spoilt ballots (as a comparison 42% voted in the UK Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 and 50% voted in the 2011 Scottish General Election.)
86.8% voted in favour of keeping Section 28, 13.2% in favour of repeal.
Amount of Votes in Favour of Keeping Section 28 in 2001: 1,096,011 Amount of Votes SNP got in 2011 Scot Parliament election: 902,915
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Scotland has always been (relatively speaking to England) backwards to homosexuality.
It was Thatcher who decriminalised homosexuality in Scotland, which was one of her earliest achievements as Prime Minister.
So prior to 1980, being gay in Scotland was a crime.
Some SNP MSPs have been accused by one of their own MEPS of being mean, angry bigots (when it comes to gay equality)
This isn't a dig at Scotland or the SNP, the SNP also have introduced same sex marriage.
I understand the various religious factors in play there.
Not sure if it is more backward now but yes, both issues were very much cross party. There were some Labour MSPs very unhappy with same-sex marriage for instance.
It wasn't SNP MPs who voted against the English gay marriage bill. A big percentage of no votes came from Scottish Labour MPs. Pretty despicable.
Ah, thanks. Wonder what the Right in England would say if they tried that today?
I read an article that explores the arguement that gay marriage would destroy straight marriage. It turns out that a lot of people that propose that are repressed homosexuals who think that everyoneis effectively a repressed homosexual, they believe we are all constantly fighting against out urges for man on man or girl on girl action and so it follows that if gay marriage was allowed then clearly everyone would do it as that is what we want.
Breaking news — Kerry Smith has resigned as UKIP candidate for Basildon South & Thurrock East.
"During the recorded conversation, Mr Smith talks about UKIP's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) group and he can be heard jokingly referring to it as BLT UKIP, and adds "what the old poofter groups call themselves".
He jokes about "shooting peasants" from the Essex town of Chigwell and supporting "a peasant's hunt through Chigwell village"."
Personally, and since it is one of the subjects used to attack UKIP so regularly, I was sorry they asked no questions about attitudes to sexuality. Maybe the organisation is worried about what the response would be - either too pro-homosexuality for them in which case they would have to consider changing policy or too anti-homosexuality in which case the results would embarrass them. Either way it was rather an obvious omission given the range of subjects they otherwise ask opinion on.
Consider changing which policy?
I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.
For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.
i want to see the UKIP policy on SPANKING. Also FACE SITTING, CANING, BONDAGE, and SQUIRTING.
Can you elucidate?
I am entirely serious. It would be nice if one serious political party had the cullions to call the New Porn Laws for what they are: utterly ridiculous.
I think UKIP would be opposed to ostentatious spanking.
These laws by your standards have been 'ridiculous' for quite some time and have been governed as such by the BBFC. What individuals do in private is their business, but what people transmit as business is subject to classification. Its not new. it may be right nor wrong, interesting or worthless, but its not new and as such electronic media classification of it is hardly surprising.
As usual you are talking bollocks. These inane laws do not affect transmission at all. People can watch all the spanking and squirting they want at any time they want. All these laws do is criminalise our own porn industry and put them at a disadvantage compared to their continental counterparts who are still free to film the face sitting and transmit it to us to their hearts content. The only people this will in fact affect is our tax payers when all our porn companies move abroad and those who will be criminalised when they are found to have filmed themselves in the bedroom for their own viewing pleasure.
little laws made by little men and women of a puritan bent
I find it bizarre that anyone would care what consenting adults do in the comfort of their own home.
And that includes: pornography, homosexuality, heroin, video games, etc. etc. etc.
If Country A and Country B were at war, and Country A air-dropped tonnes of heroin (or any other addictive intoxicant) on Country B in order to subdue the populace, would Country B be justified in introducing strong regulations against it's possession, use, sale, etc.?
Obviously no.
Not so much liberalism as suicide then.
It's the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Liberalism praises liberty and thinks we should take steps to improve it, after considering other effects. Libertarianism is a extremist philosophy that believes the only source impeding liberty is the government, and thus wants to restrict government as much as possible, whatever the consequences.
Yes. It's a mistaken concept of freedom. The denizens of Hogarth's Gin Lane were exercising their personal freedom of action, but were not free in any meaningful sense. Today, Habeus Corpus and God knows what else of our fundamental constitutional rights are being swept away before our eyes, but even on this site, people are more exercised by these porn restrictions.
Quite apart from their intrinsic, creepy, puritanical absurdity, the Porn Laws are important because they threaten to criminalise a very large minority of the population.
Lawyers and coppers I have spoken to believe that these laws will, in effect, make it illegal not just to produce images of bondage and spanking in the UK but also to "consume" them in the UK - i.e. to watch them online.
Given that, according to surveys, 30-60% of British adults have sexual fantasies about bondage and spanking (etc), and given that many of them will therefore have sought images of the same, online, then it is reasonable to assume millions of Brits will be criminalised by these ridiculous laws.
It may seem trivial, but when a new law potentially makes, say, 10-20 million citizens into criminals overnight then it is the law which suffers, just as much as the citizen.
That's bad for everyone.
I will be spanking my policewoman GF tomorrow night, just as a protest. We must all do our bit.
Breaking news — Kerry Smith has resigned as UKIP candidate for Basildon South & Thurrock East.
"During the recorded conversation, Mr Smith talks about UKIP's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) group and he can be heard jokingly referring to it as BLT UKIP, and adds "what the old poofter groups call themselves".
He jokes about "shooting peasants" from the Essex town of Chigwell and supporting "a peasant's hunt through Chigwell village"."
Breaking news — Kerry Smith has resigned as UKIP candidate for Basildon South & Thurrock East.
"During the recorded conversation, Mr Smith talks about UKIP's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) group and he can be heard jokingly referring to it as BLT UKIP, and adds "what the old poofter groups call themselves".
He jokes about "shooting peasants" from the Essex town of Chigwell and supporting "a peasant's hunt through Chigwell village"."
Breaking news — Kerry Smith has resigned as UKIP candidate for Basildon South & Thurrock East.
"During the recorded conversation, Mr Smith talks about UKIP's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) group and he can be heard jokingly referring to it as BLT UKIP, and adds "what the old poofter groups call themselves".
He jokes about "shooting peasants" from the Essex town of Chigwell and supporting "a peasant's hunt through Chigwell village"."
As an aside when being arrested for engaging in bondage no doubt the perpetrator will be placed in handcuffs? .... Oh ! ..Wait a minute I think I see a slight problem.
It's the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Liberalism praises liberty and thinks we should take steps to improve it, after considering other effects. Libertarianism is a extremist philosophy that believes the only source impeding liberty is the government, and thus wants to restrict government as much as possible, whatever the consequences.
Yes. It's a mistaken concept of freedom. The denizens of Hogarth's Gin Lane were exercising their personal freedom of action, but were not free in any meaningful sense. Today, Habeus Corpus and God knows what else of our fundamental constitutional rights are being swept away before our eyes, but even on this site, people are more exercised by these porn restrictions.
Quite apart from their intrinsic, creepy, puritanical absurdity, the Porn Laws are important because they threaten to criminalise a very large minority of the population.
Lawyers and coppers I have spoken to believe that these laws will, in effect, make it illegal not just to produce images of bondage and spanking in the UK but also to "consume" them in the UK - i.e. to watch them online.
Given that, according to surveys, 30-60% of British adults have sexual fantasies about bondage and spanking (etc), and given that many of them will therefore have sought images of the same, online, then it is reasonable to assume millions of Brits will be criminalised by these ridiculous laws.
It may seem trivial, but when a new law potentially makes, say, 10-20 million citizens into criminals overnight then it is the law which suffers, just as much as the citizen.
That's bad for everyone.
I will be spanking my policewoman GF tomorrow night, just as a protest. We must all do our bit.
Isn't it amazing that those that are the first to rail against people who disagree with tory gay marriage laws on the grounds of "how dare you interfere in what people get up to in their own bedroom" are among the first to claim the new porn laws are only right and proper. Frankly both seem to be exactly the same issue to me....state interference in what people like to do in the privacy of their own home
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/9859036/Gay-marriage-the-French-connection.html
People have been generally more in favour of it than opposed to it, usually a majority.
Anecdote vs Polling evidence
55% of the voters supported same sex marriage in May 2013
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/lu4hu1in3u/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-170513.pdf
62% supported same sex marriage in Dec 2012
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/26/voters-back-gay-marriage-poll
The polls that show the voter opposed to gay marriage have methodological issues
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4984
I've said we should have had a referendum on same sex marriage, just to show the homophobes how out of touch they were.
OK, looks like YG and ComRes are the only weekend polls, so it's that time of the week again, when we at the Sunil on Sunday release our ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week). There were nine polls with field-work end-dates from 7th to 13th Dec, with a total weighted sample of 11,776.
Lab 33.6% (+0.7)
Con 32.7% (+1.3)
UKIP 15.3% (-0.8)
LD 7.5% (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.9% (-0.5)
changes from our very first ELBOW on 17th August:
Lab -2.5%
Con -0.5%
UKIP +2.2%
LD -1.3%
Lab lead -2.1% (ie. was 3.0, now 0.9%)
Take-home:
* Biggest ever weekly jump in Tory score in ELBOW
* Lab also up despite this, but much less than Tories - highest Lab score since mid Oct
* Joint-lowest score for UKIP since Clacton
* LDs also up a touch, best score for a month
Was it all you were hoping for?
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 • 11s11 seconds ago
Sunil_on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) update 14th Dec: Lab 33.6%, Con 32.7%, UKIP 15.3%, LD 7.5%
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/544101205103116288
http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/greg-cochrans-gay-germ-hypothesis-an-exercise-in-the-power-of-germs/
Secondly, regarding the US: I had previously modelled 1.3m barrels of incremental supply out of the US (1m on-shore tight/shale, 300k Gulf of Mexico). With the lower price, this is probably going to be around 0.6-0.8m barrels, and therefore the GDP estimate for 2015 includes this reduction.
Not that that has, nor will, make much difference to his advocates, not unlike Freud's.
I've just eaten a cooked chicken that was absolutely delicious.
It was awesome in its tastiness.
In fact, it was so enjoyable, that if the government heard about it, they would make it illegal.
How pleasant
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dEpmY19JSTdHWm02WUZRWE1NY2xraFE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
Try reading Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul Ewald, you might learn something. Revolutionised medicine.
And that includes: pornography, homosexuality, heroin, video games, etc. etc. etc.
31.8% of people in Scotland voted excluding spoilt ballots (as a comparison 42% voted in the UK Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 and 50% voted in the 2011 Scottish General Election.)
86.8% voted in favour of keeping Section 28, 13.2% in favour of repeal.
Amount of Votes in Favour of Keeping Section 28 in 2001: 1,096,011
Amount of Votes SNP got in 2011 Scot Parliament election: 902,915
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
So the genetic predisposition to colorectal cancer studies (http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v4/n10/full/nrc1453.html) are complete fabrications? Presumably to push some sore of pro-gay agenda.
By the way: 10 seconds googling would find you 100 articles linking genes with the vast majority of cancers.
Their banning of spanking is one of the most cretinous things they've done recently, and I'm not even a fan of it.
One thing that I am really curious about: how has Murphy taken a rock solid Tory seat and made it a rock solid Labour seat? Has he been helped by boundary changes or demographic shifts? It is remarkable to think of say a safe rural Tory seat becoming Bootle on the Wolds by virtue of the power of the candidate alone.
It was Thatcher who decriminalised homosexuality in Scotland, which was one of her earliest achievements as Prime Minister.
So prior to 1980, being gay in Scotland was a crime.
Some SNP MSPs have been accused by one of their own MEPS of being mean, angry bigots (when it comes to gay equality)
This isn't a dig at Scotland or the SNP, the SNP also have introduced same sex marriage.
I understand the various religious factors in play there.
Why should he - or anyone else - sign up to "my party, right or wrong"?
At 34% each, Labour has 37 seats to SNP's 15. Only when the SNP goes above 36% that FPTP begins to play to their advantage.
Ultimately, it only takes one or two replications with the wrong mutations... and if your immune system isn't paying attention... then cancer
As the governing party the tories must be hoping to get back to 36-37%. You would think that labour have nowhere to go and the governing parties have a rising economic trend, with low oil prices.
Bloody BBC Commies.
Matthew 7:5
Now I'm off to watch Homeland, and I know you like to have the last word, as you're never wrong, knock yourself out.
And surely you believe that Big Pharma already has the 'cure' but is suppressing it in the interest of its shareholders?
http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/02/a-new-germ-theory/377430/
A good introduction to his work.
for ISAM and TSE re poor tired emotional Mr. Kerry -
Just a gentle reminder before it blew up you were happy to pass comment.
isam • Posts: 10,731
December 10
Right back to where we started... A good, honest local boy!
Gawain Towler @GawainTowler · 26m26 minutes ago
Cllr Kerry Smith selected for Thurrock and South Basildon @ukip
Considering gay rights campaigners behaviour during the Papal Visit, it is even more ludicrous for them to.
These laws by your standards have been 'ridiculous' for quite some time and have been governed as such by the BBFC.
What individuals do in private is their business, but what people transmit as business is subject to classification. Its not new. it may be right nor wrong, interesting or worthless, but its not new and as such electronic media classification of it is hardly surprising.
Further gay rights campaigners are entitled to protest in this country. The Pope might consider himself infallible but others beg to differ.
-Precisely. There seems to be no prospect of a cure (the way there was for smallpox), merely an ever growing number of therapies of varying success -hence my inverted commas. However, these therapies are universally lucrative to the pharmaceutical industry. Unlike prevention, which is not lucrative to anyone -quite the opposite. Thanks for making my point for me x2
-My point about 'Fun Runs' is that I find it somewhat sad to see people put so much effort and emotion into fundraising for a cure, when they daily bathe in, apply, eat, and wear the cause (sorry, 50% of the cause), through ignorance.
-Now you're attacking things I haven't even said. Pitiable.
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
I criticised people on here for not criticising the Thurrock dog whistle comments only because they would have done if it were ukip doing the dog whistling. Wrong as I thought it was, I didn't particularly criticise the Tory campaign. I was noting the double standards on here
Also, Kerry Smith doesn't seem a particularly savoury character, though I've never met him or noticed anything else he had said. If he were posting on here in a holier then thou manner then I would criticise him for what he is reported to have said. You. however like to criticise people tirelessly for any comment you regard as offensive yet make lots of provocative, trolling and insulting comments yourself...
Hence I pull you up for your double standards and hypocrisy
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
People look to government like it is a panacea. Strong government is worshipped. It is genuinely scary how many people seem to think that if 51% of the population wants to torture the other 49%, then that's 'OK' and that democracy.
The state is like cancer. And we need to do all we can to restrict its spread.
And SeanT is quite right - everything is partly or wholly genetic. Including the mechanisms to respond to the environmental situation in which an individual organism finds itself. E.g. grow hair if in winter: is that hair innate or environmental? Neither or both, of course. Perfectly plausibly grow up gay if in certain social/familial contexts (I am not up to date in current thinking), and so on and so forth. The classic case is IIRC the white-crowned sparrow. It learns its song from its parents - it is not instinctive - but that learning is genetically mediated: it learns daddy's song much more quickly and precisely than, say, the American robin in the nest next door (no idea if they actually live in the same habitat but you get the idea).
Add to that plain errors (including the effect of frustration, vide the fur seals and the unfortunate penguins discussed here a few weeks back) and the rather obvious principle of jumping anything that moves and might be a female, just in case, and you're already a long way to outlining a workable theory of animal homosexuality. No idea what the current state of play is but on the basic issues of genetics and genotype/phenotype interactions, Richard Dawkins and Matt Ridley discuss such issues pretty well.
It's pretty sad really.
"During the recorded conversation, Mr Smith talks about UKIP's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) group and he can be heard jokingly referring to it as BLT UKIP, and adds "what the old poofter groups call themselves".
He jokes about "shooting peasants" from the Essex town of Chigwell and supporting "a peasant's hunt through Chigwell village"."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467897
little laws made by little men and women of a puritan bent
Still, I'm sure he was the only rotten apple in the Kipper barrel.