It's that time of year again, and I've given money to poppy sellers but refused a poppy in return. Is the demand that people wear poppies just virtue signalling writ large?
(runs for cover)
and apart from the linked articles, there are several pieces by eg. Jon Snow, Charlene White, etc who refuse to wear one because it preferences one charity over another.
All very valid and if I were to think about it (big effort) I would say that a poppy represents (or has come to represent) both a national existential struggle and the ultimate sacrifice. You are saying you support those who go to fight so you can stay free (forget current conflicts where that line is none too clear).
So by wearing it you are also engaging in national solidarity and acceptance that we are a unitary nation which is prepared to fight for the values we hold dear.
It is still virtue signalling after a fashion but it is also a shortcut to illustrate your, our value system. Not so bad given the various assaults on that system from one group or another.
Paying for a poppy is not virtue signalling, by definition - you've sacrificed something to make a statement; whereas virtue signalling costs nothing. Demanding that others wear (or don't wear) poppies probably is.
"This train has been cancelled due to virtue signalling failure"
Thanks for the two links to the Policy Network and Open Europe document. And thanks for the pointer from LucyJones about the potential funding biases of the Policy Network. I'll bear that in mind when I read them.
EDIT: To be honest, I'd be more concerned about the author being the former Labour Minister for Europe...
Very balanced and goes through each of our export sectors, models and economic impacts in turn.
Right, yes I agree. However the Policy Network document is more detailed on the mechanics, which was what I meant.
Fair enough. Pleased we agree on something EU related!
What I like about the Open Europe paper is that it's honest about the uncertainty, and doesn't make any assumptions about how negotiations or deals may turn out, but it does do its best to explain the facts and then assess the risks and opportunities with each model with reasonable probabilities of outcome attached.
Key partnership here between Cook and Root. If they can put on 80 or 100 for the next wicket then we've got a match tomorrow. Eng at 4/1 on Betfair looks value.
This has been a great series hasn't it? People complain about slow run rate but every match has gone to the final day with at least two results possible
It's been very good, three close matches. The slow over rates and run rates are probably a factor of the heat but they got through the matches - although that last day in AD was one of the weirdest day's cricket I've ever seen first hand.
Pretty peeved I'm not going to be able to make it there tomorrow, damn customers getting in the way after I'd done my best to engineer a day off!
It's that time of year again, and I've given money to poppy sellers but refused a poppy in return. Is the demand that people wear poppies just virtue signalling writ large?
(runs for cover)
I'm in Canada, and have bought a poppy from a seller here. (It is every bit as common to wear a poppy here as in the UK.)
However, the quality of the poppies is much, much higher. They don't feel like some cheap bit of paper.
Question for PBers: am I allowed to wear my Canadian poppy back in London, or do I have to get an additional British one? (I will, of course, donate in the UK.)
Hmm the draw might still be live in the test, average so far is 235 runs per day and 238 are needed. If Pakistan's spinners tie England up and get some wickets then it becomes a real possibility (Pak/Draw game) rather than a PAK/ENG game.
It's that time of year again, and I've given money to poppy sellers but refused a poppy in return. Is the demand that people wear poppies just virtue signalling writ large?
(runs for cover)
I'm in Canada, and have bought a poppy from a seller here. (It is every bit as common to wear a poppy here as in the UK.)
However, the quality of the poppies is much, much higher. They don't feel like some cheap bit of paper.
Question for PBers: am I allowed to wear my Canadian poppy back in London, or do I have to get an additional British one? (I will, of course, donate in the UK.)
Thanks for the two links to the Policy Network and Open Europe document. And thanks for the pointer from LucyJones about the potential funding biases of the Policy Network. I'll bear that in mind when I read them.
EDIT: To be honest, I'd be more concerned about the author being the former Labour Minister for Europe...
If we are speaking of funding sources possibly biasing articles, I do need to point out that Matthew Elliott (or Business for Britain or a subset therof, I forget which), has received money from The Telegraph. I think it's called "vertical integration": newspaper pays think-tank, think-tank publishes report, report excerpts get published in the newspaper.
He needs to remember why PMQs is taking so long, it's the juvenile behaviour group of overgrown schoolboys on his side barracking
Barracking is integral to the average PMQ experience, it really should not therefore be adding that much to the process than what it always has. I'm not defending Cameron's moaning on this, I don't care how long it takes and inconveniencing him is also what it is about, but I also don't give much truck to complaints about any side barracking too much.
Hmm the draw might still be live in the test, average so far is 235 runs per day and 238 are needed. If Pakistan's spinners tie England up and get some wickets then it becomes a real possibility (Pak/Draw game) rather than a PAK/ENG game.
I am green on Pakistan win and draw red on England win.
It will be close but I expect Khan to win, London voted Labour in May and Khan is ruthless and will get out the ethnic vote. Goldsmith also lacks the charisma of Boris and his appeal to white van man although he will win LD and Green preferences he is unlikely to win many from UKIP despite his euroscepticism
The non-Muslim vote will be more motivated that the Muslim vote. I am apparently an Ethnic voter and I would rather leave London for Zurich or New York than vote or live under a Khan mayoralty. Lumping everyone together doesn't work.
Hmm the draw might still be live in the test, average so far is 235 runs per day and 238 are needed. If Pakistan's spinners tie England up and get some wickets then it becomes a real possibility (Pak/Draw game) rather than a PAK/ENG game.
All three results are certainly in play, a slow and steady start to the day will bring the draw price in from the current 14.5 on BF. With 238 to get, we need to have 80 by lunch and at least 150 by tea with (hopefully) a handful of wickets left.
If we can hold it together there will be a grandstand finish to the match.
Remember that, as in the first test, there will be an absolute cutoff for light, at 17:15L (13:15GMT), not allowing the extra half hour to be taken.
I don't know. Interestingly, Labour are supporting it, Nick Clegg says it's "much improved" and even the SNP aren't opposed. Only the Greens seem to have a problem with it.
But I could easily see local authorities or police abusing this: "do you want me to tell your wife you looked at redtube 4 times a month last year?"
I've never bought the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' defence. We all have something to hide. And, besides which, part of our sovereignty as individuals is about retaining control over what we choose to reveal.
I don't know. Interestingly, Labour are supporting it, Nick Clegg says it's "much improved" and even the SNP aren't opposed. Only the Greens seem to have a problem with it.
But I could easily see local authorities or police abusing this: "do you want me to tell your wife you looked at redtube 4 times a month last year?"
I've never bought the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' defence. We all have something to hide. And, besides which, part of our sovereignty as individuals is about retaining control over what we choose to reveal.
If we are going to have a UK court of human rights rather than a European one, this is precisely the sort of thing I'd hope it could constitutionally rule upon.
I personally would want a warrant to start recording someone's browsing history in the first place. Not recording everyone's by default.
I don't know. Interestingly, Labour are supporting it, Nick Clegg says it's "much improved" and even the SNP aren't opposed. Only the Greens seem to have a problem with it.
But I could easily see local authorities or police abusing this: "do you want me to tell your wife you looked at redtube 4 times a month last year?"
I've never bought the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' defence. We all have something to hide. And, besides which, part of our sovereignty as individuals is about retaining control over what we choose to reveal.
There is a new stipulation that outlines a 2 year prison sentence for abuse by local authority workers. One would hope that the definition of abuse is quite broad.
They already know. They've always already known. Everytime your browser requests a page or you post an item, somebody somewhere stores that information. All of it, every bit of it, since the first day you browsed. If you ignore moving images (an important caveat), the storage capacity required is achievable, and getting easier every day. The only reason why they don't do anything* really* oppressive with it is because we're not really important enough to bother with, and plowing thru all that data is a genuine problem...but even that latter point is getting easier.
(sorry, I tend to get a bit ranty about this point...)
I don't know. Interestingly, Labour are supporting it, Nick Clegg says it's "much improved" and even the SNP aren't opposed. Only the Greens seem to have a problem with it.
But I could easily see local authorities or police abusing this: "do you want me to tell your wife you looked at redtube 4 times a month last year?"
I've never bought the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' defence. We all have something to hide. And, besides which, part of our sovereignty as individuals is about retaining control over what we choose to reveal.
There is a new stipulation that outlines a 2 year prison sentence for abuse by local authority workers. One would hope that the definition of abuse is quite broad.
That's just it: one would hope. Funnily enough, I trust GCHQ and Mi5 far more on this - they don't have the time or resources to waste on joe public - but there's a litany of past abuses by the nose-poking petty official over the last 10-15 years, and it ends with less power and control by the citizen and more bossiness by the state. Some of whom at the local level love monitoring compliance of people and then bossing them, threatening them if it doesn't work.
He needs to remember why PMQs is taking so long, it's the juvenile behaviour group of overgrown schoolboys on his side barracking
Oh dear - now you'll be saying '24 hours to save PMQs' Yaaawwwnnn.
After five outings by Jeremy Corbyn you would have thought David Cameron would be starting to get his measure by now. The Labour leader brings a weary air to the exchanges , asking his questions with the gentleness of an undertaker talking to the newly bereaved. Cameron, and the Tories behind him, are still itching for a punch up. The incessant jeering by the Conservatives at Corbyn is not just tiresome, it must look odious to any casual viewer.
He needs to remember why PMQs is taking so long, it's the juvenile behaviour group of overgrown schoolboys on his side barracking
Oh dear - now you'll be saying '24 hours to save PMQs' Yaaawwwnnn.
After five outings by Jeremy Corbyn you would have thought David Cameron would be starting to get his measure by now. The Labour leader brings a weary air to the exchanges , asking his questions with the gentleness of an undertaker talking to the newly bereaved. Cameron, and the Tories behind him, are still itching for a punch up. The incessant jeering by the Conservatives at Corbyn is not just tiresome, it must look odious to any casual viewer.
Who are these casual viewers of Prime Minister's Questions of whom you speak?
They already know. They've always already known. Everytime your browser requests a page or you post an item, somebody somewhere stores that information. All of it, every bit of it, since the first day you browsed. If you ignore moving images (an important caveat), the storage capacity required is achievable, and getting easier every day. The only reason why they don't do anything* really* oppressive with it is because we're not really important enough to bother with, and plowing thru all that data is a genuine problem...but even that latter point is getting easier.
(sorry, I tend to get a bit ranty about this point...)
He needs to remember why PMQs is taking so long, it's the juvenile behaviour group of overgrown schoolboys on his side barracking
Oh dear - now you'll be saying '24 hours to save PMQs' Yaaawwwnnn.
After five outings by Jeremy Corbyn you would have thought David Cameron would be starting to get his measure by now. The Labour leader brings a weary air to the exchanges , asking his questions with the gentleness of an undertaker talking to the newly bereaved. Cameron, and the Tories behind him, are still itching for a punch up. The incessant jeering by the Conservatives at Corbyn is not just tiresome, it must look odious to any casual viewer.
Note the lack of support/cheering Corbyn gets from the Labour backbenches
It's not just the obvious adult(ery) sites, it's also checking about contraception/abortion information, or symptoms of STDs.
Legal advice on divorce. How to save a relationship. Browsing competitors for possible jobs. Betting when a spouse or family member might disapprove. Doing research that's misinterpreted. Exploring religions or political sites that might be at odds with your professional or peer group.
I don't know. Interestingly, Labour are supporting it, Nick Clegg says it's "much improved" and even the SNP aren't opposed. Only the Greens seem to have a problem with it.
But I could easily see local authorities or police abusing this: "do you want me to tell your wife you looked at redtube 4 times a month last year?"
I've never bought the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' defence. We all have something to hide. And, besides which, part of our sovereignty as individuals is about retaining control over what we choose to reveal.
There is a new stipulation that outlines a 2 year prison sentence for abuse by local authority workers. One would hope that the definition of abuse is quite broad.
That's just it: one would hope. Funnily enough, I trust GCHQ and Mi5 far more on this - they don't have the time or resources to waste on joe public - but there's a litany of past abuses by the nose-poking petty official over the last 10-15 years, and it ends with less power and control by the citizen and more bossiness by the state. Some of whom at the local level love monitoring compliance of people and then bossing them, threatening them if it doesn't work.
I am hugely suspicious of this.
You've every right to be suspicious. Police and especially local authorities have a long track record of abusing their access to information for personal, petty or vindictive reasons. This should be restricted to the spooks.
He needs to remember why PMQs is taking so long, it's the juvenile behaviour group of overgrown schoolboys on his side barracking
Oh dear - now you'll be saying '24 hours to save PMQs' Yaaawwwnnn.
After five outings by Jeremy Corbyn you would have thought David Cameron would be starting to get his measure by now. The Labour leader brings a weary air to the exchanges , asking his questions with the gentleness of an undertaker talking to the newly bereaved. Cameron, and the Tories behind him, are still itching for a punch up. The incessant jeering by the Conservatives at Corbyn is not just tiresome, it must look odious to any casual viewer.
Note the lack of support/cheering Corbyn gets from the Labour backbenches
90% would prefer Burnham, Cooper or Kendall to be leader and for Lab to be going along with Austerity.
It's not just the obvious adult(ery) sites, it's also checking about contraception/abortion information, or symptoms of STDs.
Legal advice on divorce. How to save a relationship. Browsing competitors for possible jobs. Betting when a spouse or family member might disapprove. Doing research that's misinterpreted. Exploring religions or political sites that might be at odds with your professional or peer group.
The list goes on.
Whilst I do share your broad concerns, it is just updating things for the age of the information super highway
Look how we dealt with a traitorous pig dog nearly 60 years ago.
@MichaelLCrick: On surveillance, this is Home Secretary in 1951 agreeing postal interception of addresses linked to Guy Burgess https://t.co/dTc9u8z73u
Sort of related to the Investigatory Powers Bill, the person who came up with the concept of incognito browsing was a marketing genius.
Private browsing is only there so that your other half can't see that you were "shopping for birthday presents" - any network traffic that leaves the computer doesn't care what mode your browser is in and can still log everything you've been looking at!
Sort of related to the Investigatory Powers Bill, the person who came up with the concept of incognito browsing was a marketing genius.
Private browsing is only there so that your other half can't see that you were "shopping for birthday presents" - any network traffic that leaves the computer doesn't care what mode your browser is in and can still log everything you've been looking at!
It's not just the obvious adult(ery) sites, it's also checking about contraception/abortion information, or symptoms of STDs.
Legal advice on divorce. How to save a relationship. Browsing competitors for possible jobs. Betting when a spouse or family member might disapprove. Doing research that's misinterpreted. Exploring religions or political sites that might be at odds with your professional or peer group.
The list goes on.
Whilst I do share your broad concerns, it is just updating things for the age of the information super highway
Look how we dealt with a traitorous pig dog nearly 60 years ago.
@MichaelLCrick: On surveillance, this is Home Secretary in 1951 agreeing postal interception of addresses linked to Guy Burgess https://t.co/dTc9u8z73u
Authorisation required from the Home Sec to open a letter, in a clear instance of a threat to national security. A far cry from a jumped-up council numpty picking through your browsing habits from the last year to see if you joked about fly-tipping a washing machine.
Sort of related to the Investigatory Powers Bill, the person who came up with the concept of incognito browsing was a marketing genius.
Private browsing is only there so that your other half can't see that you were "shopping for birthday presents" - any network traffic that leaves the computer doesn't care what mode your browser is in and can still log everything you've been looking at!
The key word in the sentence was "marketing".
"Shopping for birthday presents" is one of the alltime great euphemisms too.
I don't know. Interestingly, Labour are supporting it, Nick Clegg says it's "much improved" and even the SNP aren't opposed. Only the Greens seem to have a problem with it.
But I could easily see local authorities or police abusing this: "do you want me to tell your wife you looked at redtube 4 times a month last year?"
I've never bought the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' defence. We all have something to hide. And, besides which, part of our sovereignty as individuals is about retaining control over what we choose to reveal.
There is a new stipulation that outlines a 2 year prison sentence for abuse by local authority workers. One would hope that the definition of abuse is quite broad.
That's just it: one would hope. Funnily enough, I trust GCHQ and Mi5 far more on this - they don't have the time or resources to waste on joe public - but there's a litany of past abuses by the nose-poking petty official over the last 10-15 years, and it ends with less power and control by the citizen and more bossiness by the state. Some of whom at the local level love monitoring compliance of people and then bossing them, threatening them if it doesn't work.
I am hugely suspicious of this.
You've every right to be suspicious. Police and especially local authorities have a long track record of abusing their access to information for personal, petty or vindictive reasons. This should be restricted to the spooks.
Sort of related to the Investigatory Powers Bill, the person who came up with the concept of incognito browsing was a marketing genius.
Private browsing is only there so that your other half can't see that you were "shopping for birthday presents" - any network traffic that leaves the computer doesn't care what mode your browser is in and can still log everything you've been looking at!
It's not just the obvious adult(ery) sites, it's also checking about contraception/abortion information, or symptoms of STDs.
Legal advice on divorce. How to save a relationship. Browsing competitors for possible jobs. Betting when a spouse or family member might disapprove. Doing research that's misinterpreted. Exploring religions or political sites that might be at odds with your professional or peer group.
The list goes on.
Whilst I do share your broad concerns, it is just updating things for the age of the information super highway
Look how we dealt with a traitorous pig dog nearly 60 years ago.
@MichaelLCrick: On surveillance, this is Home Secretary in 1951 agreeing postal interception of addresses linked to Guy Burgess https://t.co/dTc9u8z73u
Is it though? And is it the same thing even if it is?
You can tell far more about someone's life, problems and habits from a browsing history than you can from a list of telephone numbers.
A far cry from a jumped-up council numpty picking through your browsing habits from the last year to see if you joked about fly-tipping a washing machine.
Local authorities are explictly excluded from that power under this new bill. I think they might currently have that power under RIPA, if the ISP has the data (which I believe they usually will, for a time at least).
I don't know. Interestingly, Labour are supporting it, Nick Clegg says it's "much improved" and even the SNP aren't opposed. Only the Greens seem to have a problem with it.
But I could easily see local authorities or police abusing this: "do you want me to tell your wife you looked at redtube 4 times a month last year?"
I've never bought the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' defence. We all have something to hide. And, besides which, part of our sovereignty as individuals is about retaining control over what we choose to reveal.
I don't know. Interestingly, Labour are supporting it, Nick Clegg says it's "much improved" and even the SNP aren't opposed. Only the Greens seem to have a problem with it.
But I could easily see local authorities or police abusing this: "do you want me to tell your wife you looked at redtube 4 times a month last year?"
I've never bought the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' defence. We all have something to hide. And, besides which, part of our sovereignty as individuals is about retaining control over what we choose to reveal.
There is a new stipulation that outlines a 2 year prison sentence for abuse by local authority workers. One would hope that the definition of abuse is quite broad.
I can see no good case why local authority workers should have access to such a database.
I don't know. Interestingly, Labour are supporting it, Nick Clegg says it's "much improved" and even the SNP aren't opposed. Only the Greens seem to have a problem with it.
But I could easily see local authorities or police abusing this: "do you want me to tell your wife you looked at redtube 4 times a month last year?"
I've never bought the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' defence. We all have something to hide. And, besides which, part of our sovereignty as individuals is about retaining control over what we choose to reveal.
Well said. I may well have nothing to fear, save embarrassment at being a political wonk, but the potential abuses and broad reach that seem impossible to mitigate against effectively make the stated purpose seem an overreach, though I take Janan Ganesh's point in a recent article that the public at large don't generally seem to care about these sorts of issues, rightly or wrongly. It's a tough, butusually accepted case, for spooks to have access, to override privacy, and widening that is risky.
Comments
(I'll get me donkey jacket...)
Thats a relief
http://www.hsj.co.uk/newsletter/comment/panic-and-denial-wont-solve-funding-issues/5090395.article?WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Newsletter170#.VjoGGrfhAol
EDIT: To be honest, I'd be more concerned about the author being the former Labour Minister for Europe...
What I like about the Open Europe paper is that it's honest about the uncertainty, and doesn't make any assumptions about how negotiations or deals may turn out, but it does do its best to explain the facts and then assess the risks and opportunities with each model with reasonable probabilities of outcome attached.
"Rebel Tory MP Andrew Rosindell has teamed up with Ukip election rival Gerard Batten to push for Britain to leave the European Union
Just six months after trading blows on the campaign trail in Romford, the pair are fronting a cross-party Havering group ahead of the EU referendum.
Mr Rosindell said he has also spoken to members of the borough’s various residents’ groups about joining and is keen to put party differences aside.
He said: “I believe we will form a very strong group to fight to restore Britain’s independence.
He added: “I am willing to work with any mainstream party but not extremists. Not the BNP or EDL or anyone who is prejudice or racist.””
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/politics/romford_mp_andrew_rosindell_teams_with_ukip_mep_gerard_batten_for_eu_out_campaign_1_4296168
Pretty peeved I'm not going to be able to make it there tomorrow, damn customers getting in the way after I'd done my best to engineer a day off!
However, the quality of the poppies is much, much higher. They don't feel like some cheap bit of paper.
Question for PBers: am I allowed to wear my Canadian poppy back in London, or do I have to get an additional British one? (I will, of course, donate in the UK.)
He needs to remember why PMQs is taking so long, it's the juvenile behaviour group of overgrown schoolboys on his side barracking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10468332/Stealth-pay-rises-for-NHS-staff-costing-1bn-a-year.html
There will be leaks and abuses and it sounds a receipe for blackmail to me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872
If we can hold it together there will be a grandstand finish to the match.
Remember that, as in the first test, there will be an absolute cutoff for light, at 17:15L (13:15GMT), not allowing the extra half hour to be taken.
But I could easily see local authorities or police abusing this: "do you want me to tell your wife you looked at redtube 4 times a month last year?"
I've never bought the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' defence. We all have something to hide. And, besides which, part of our sovereignty as individuals is about retaining control over what we choose to reveal.
http://www.incrediblethings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Delete-My-Browser-History-Medicalert-Bracelet.jpg
I personally would want a warrant to start recording someone's browsing history in the first place. Not recording everyone's by default.
https://t.co/WSiZSv6PPM
#IPBill #IPB
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/haver
(sorry, I tend to get a bit ranty about this point...)
You actually agree with me that it won't be eradicated don't you?
The ISP would have to store it for a year by law, and you could never delete it.
40,000 "delegates" all on the climate change gravy train can't be wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BhKQoTzns0
I am hugely suspicious of this.
The Labour leader brings a weary air to the exchanges , asking his questions with the gentleness of an undertaker talking to the newly bereaved.
Cameron, and the Tories behind him, are still itching for a punch up.
The incessant jeering by the Conservatives at Corbyn is not just tiresome, it must look odious to any casual viewer.
It's not just the obvious adult(ery) sites, it's also checking about contraception/abortion information, or symptoms of STDs.
The list goes on.
Look how we dealt with a traitorous pig dog nearly 60 years ago.
@MichaelLCrick: On surveillance, this is Home Secretary in 1951 agreeing postal interception of addresses linked to Guy Burgess https://t.co/dTc9u8z73u
"Shopping for birthday presents" is one of the alltime great euphemisms too.
New Thread New Thread
You can tell far more about someone's life, problems and habits from a browsing history than you can from a list of telephone numbers.
I am pointing you towards one of the sources of the deficit though.
That can't go on.
Archaic arrangements like 'time served' pay increases were scrapped in many parts of the public sector back in the 1990s.
Elements of the NHS, and I suspect education, are still stuck in those by-gone times.
Time to carve the fat off the morbidly obese health service.
It's a tough, butusually accepted case, for spooks to have access, to override privacy, and widening that is risky.