Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
The new wave of Asylum seekers in Germany and elsewhere are, in reality, largely made up of tens of thousands of unaccompanied young men looking for work and a better life. They have next to no roots in the community.
They have next to no opportunity to meet women, let alone form a relationship with one. They come from cultures where women are still treated like property, property which is safely guarded and deeply curtailed. They were invited in to a society where women go where they like, wear what they like, drink what they like and have sex with who they like (and quite right too).
What did people think was going to happen? I mean, really, the only thing surprising about Cologne and elsewhere is that this has not already happened on a larger scale. My expectation is that the seedier and more exploitive end of the sex trade will have been doing a roaring trade with these men, something which will hardly have helped give them a more rounded idea of the role and rights of females in our society.
None of this excuses or justifies criminal acts for which the perpetrators need to be held responsible but what all this shows is that integrating asylum seekers into a community is a tricky and difficult task which the State has not even come close to addressing. It is obviously unacceptable that women should have to bear the consequences of this. And the politics of these failures are dangerous.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
err actually it is, its for the people who are too stupid to realise what they are doing, same for warnings on obesity and type 2 diabetes...., drugs .... the list is endless I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
So people are stupid, until drinking becomes illegal govt needs to shut the phuck up and get out of people's lives.
I can see that you are the type of person that would end up with sclerosis of the liver and then whine about the NHS and the treatment thereof.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
err actually it is, its for the people who are too stupid to realise what they are doing, same for warnings on obesity and type 2 diabetes...., drugs .... the list is endless I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
So people are stupid, until drinking becomes illegal govt needs to shut the phuck up and get out of people's lives.
You don't think the government has a duty (and with costs falling to the NHS and an interest) to give its citizens advice? Whether they take the advice is up to them - but where's the problem?
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
err actually it is, its for the people who are too stupid to realise what they are doing, same for warnings on obesity and type 2 diabetes...., drugs .... the list is endless I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
So people are stupid, until drinking becomes illegal govt needs to shut the phuck up and get out of people's lives.
I can see that you are the type of person that would end up with sclerosis of the liver and then whine about the NHS and the treatment thereof.
Nah, I don't need some mug in Whitehall telling me I drink too much. You might.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
I agree, though the risks of low level drinking are social rather than physical in many cases.
The new wave of Asylum seekers in Germany and elsewhere are, in reality, largely made up of tens of thousands of unaccompanied young men looking for work and a better life. They have next to no roots in the community.
They have next to no opportunity to meet women, let alone form a relationship with one. They come from cultures where women are still treated like property, property which is safely guarded and deeply curtailed. They were invited in to a society where women go where they like, wear what they like, drink what they like and have sex with who they like (and quite right too).
What did people think was going to happen? I mean, really, the only thing surprising about Cologne and elsewhere is that this has not already happened on a larger scale. My expectation is that the seedier and more exploitive end of the sex trade will have been doing a roaring trade with these men, something which will hardly have helped give them a more rounded idea of the role and rights of females in our society.
None of this excuses or justifies criminal acts for which the perpetrators need to be held responsible but what all this shows is that integrating asylum seekers into a community is a tricky and difficult task which the State has not even come close to addressing. It is obviously unacceptable that women should have to bear the consequences of this. And the politics of these failures are dangerous.
Keep up mate, some of us have been warning of this for ages, but the politicians wave them through.
Oh, and we were called racist for suggesting such terrible things might happen.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
err actually it is, its for the people who are too stupid to realise what they are doing, same for warnings on obesity and type 2 diabetes...., drugs .... the list is endless I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
So people are stupid, until drinking becomes illegal govt needs to shut the phuck up and get out of people's lives.
I can see that you are the type of person that would end up with sclerosis of the liver and then whine about the NHS and the treatment thereof.
Nah, I don't need some mug in Whitehall telling me I drink too much.
Some absolutely devastating detail here, out of Cologne. The story won't die down, indeed it looks like the German papers are finally doing their job.
"Police identified some suspects who harassed women in Cologne on New Year's Eve as asylum seekers, media reports say. City police reportedly did not want to publicize this because of its "politically awkward" nature."
It's interesting that the police wanted to avoid embarrassing the government- here it's usually the other way round - I'd much rather have our police!
Really ???
If the South Yorkshire police had been there they would have been helping the attackers and threatening anyone who tried to report what had happened:
' The Conservative MP Nicola Blackwood said the committee had heard evidence in private from the Home Office researcher that her 2002 report had been greeted with hostility by South Yorkshire police. She said they had heard evidence that the researcher had been contacted by two officers who threatened to pass her name to the groomers in Rotherham and she had been left in fear of her life.
The Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert suggested to the current South Yorkshire chief constable, David Crompton, that there had been an active conspiracy involving police officers and questioned how the public could now trust South Yorkshire police.
Crompton said: "I'm absolutely committed to getting to the bottom of it. If there are any disciplinary matters, and some of these are being raised with me for the first time today, you have my absolute commitment we'll get to the bottom of it." Crompton said the police watchdog was looking into the conduct of police officers in the case of a 12-year-old sexual abuse victim who was arrested for being drunk when she was found in a derelict house with a group of men. '
Parliament was told that 16 months ago and has there been any consequent action taken by Home Secretary Theresa May and Policing Minister Mike Penning ?
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
err actually it is, its for the people who are too stupid to realise what they are doing, same for warnings on obesity and type 2 diabetes...., drugs .... the list is endless I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
So people are stupid, until drinking becomes illegal govt needs to shut the phuck up and get out of people's lives.
I can see that you are the type of person that would end up with sclerosis of the liver and then whine about the NHS and the treatment thereof.
Nah, I don't need some mug in Whitehall telling me I drink too much. You might.
You don't need it, but you don't have to act as though the state is oppressing or smothering you by saying it either. It really really is not, even if the advice is bollocks. It makes criticism of genuine and harmful overreach less effective by making it seem the same as whinging about non binding advice.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
err actually it is, its for the people who are too stupid to realise what they are doing, same for warnings on obesity and type 2 diabetes...., drugs .... the list is endless I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
So people are stupid, until drinking becomes illegal govt needs to shut the phuck up and get out of people's lives.
You don't think the government has a duty (and with costs falling to the NHS and an interest) to give its citizens advice? Whether they take the advice is up to them - but where's the problem?
Correct, I don't think the govt should advise unless a constituent attends an MP clinic. They are not advisors, they are there to set laws (far too many incidentally) and ensure they're adhered to.
By all means pass a law that makes it illegal to drink 2 pints, otherwise shut up.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
err actually it is, its for the people who are too stupid to realise what they are doing, same for warnings on obesity and type 2 diabetes...., drugs .... the list is endless I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
So people are stupid, until drinking becomes illegal govt needs to shut the phuck up and get out of people's lives.
I can see that you are the type of person that would end up with sclerosis of the liver and then whine about the NHS and the treatment thereof.
Nah, I don't need some mug in Whitehall telling me I drink too much.
Mr. 63, point of order: some are saying it's racist to point out what *has* happened [one of the protests prompted by the Cologne disgrace being finally aired by the media involved a slogan of (roughly) "No to racism"].
And that's without getting to Ralf Jaeger's view that being a tosser online is at least as bad as crimes that were perpetrated.
The idea that the State does not have an important role in promoting public health is just absurd. The problem here, as Alastair has said, is that doctors have been far too willing to make up figures in the past and have lost all credibility as a result.
The incidence of sclerosis is undoubtedly increasing, particularly amongst certain groups. There is evidence that alcohol is physically or socially addictive and that people who drink moderately are vulnerable. It is probably also true that we mostly underestimate how much we drink since most drinking is now done in the house instead of a pub with fixed measures.
The first step forward is for the medical profession to try to regain credibility so they are listened to. I am not sure today is a good start in that direction.
Milliband's father became 'a target' after Milliband cited him as one of the biggest influences in his political life. While perhaps distasteful, its not remotely comparable to going for the wife and kids.
Even the Mafia don't do that.
Ffs.
How about politicians are judged on what they do and the money spent on spin and PR is sent to flood victims.
Milliband did - he spoke about his influences - and people judged him on those influences.
So when Dave speaks fondly of his wife it's different to Ed speaking fondly of his Dad.
Gotcha.
Oh come on! is Cameron saying that his wife is a direct influence and inspiration on his current political beliefs.
No.
Definitely not.
You're making a ludicrous point.
Anyway, thankfully, we're wasting our time on a has-been and a never-was.
Do you think Coulson went to jail for failing to return library books?
Coulson went to jail because he wasn't lucky enough to be working at the Mirror....
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
I would agree, to a degree, but you complained about it as though the state was imposing something (hence anger at not 'rolling back' the state as though this was the opposite) and that is apparently not the case. There's better things for the state to be doing, ut putting out a message saying drink less is pretty low on the scale of unpalatable state interactions.
The state shouldn't be paying people to generate or disseminate this sort of nanny-ism, I thought we had problems with NHS budgets!
Mr. 63, point of order: some are saying it's racist to point out what *has* happened [one of the protests prompted by the Cologne disgrace being finally aired by the media involved a slogan of (roughly) "No to racism"].
And that's without getting to Ralf Jaeger's view that being a tosser online is at least as bad as crimes that were perpetrated.
The irony being that the most bigoted, racist people in western countries tend to be Muslims.
But that is another thing which is deliberately overlooked.
I'm baffled by giving men and women the same limit. It's stupid two ways. First off, if you believe the male/female specific limits were too generalising, it makes no sense to generalise more. Secondly, it perpetuates the dangerous myth that women can (again, in general) keep up with men. Women have smaller bodies and less blood and, collectively, can take less drink.
Keeping up with men is probably what lands more women than men in hospital with alcohol poisoning. Apparently medical facts matter less than genuflecting before equality, even when equality literally doesn't exist.
Mr. 63, point of order: some are saying it's racist to point out what *has* happened [one of the protests prompted by the Cologne disgrace being finally aired by the media involved a slogan of (roughly) "No to racism"].
And that's without getting to Ralf Jaeger's view that being a tosser online is at least as bad as crimes that were perpetrated.
The irony being that the most bigoted, racist people in western countries tend to be Muslims.
But that is another thing which is deliberately overlooked.
In order to be racist, it is first necessary to be white.
Mr. Richard, I feel massive sympathy for normal Muslims. They have extremist psychopaths shouting their god's name whilst murdering people, and politically correct liberal guilt-ridden cretins trying to do things they never asked for on their behalf.
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
Mr. 63, point of order: some are saying it's racist to point out what *has* happened [one of the protests prompted by the Cologne disgrace being finally aired by the media involved a slogan of (roughly) "No to racism"].
And that's without getting to Ralf Jaeger's view that being a tosser online is at least as bad as crimes that were perpetrated.
The irony being that the most bigoted, racist people in western countries tend to be Muslims.
But that is another thing which is deliberately overlooked.
Anybody undecided about the EU who is casting a worried eye towards Cologne must consider that Dave wants Turkey to join the EU.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
Nor is that what was done. You really are incredibly thick sometimes -or maybe you just had one too many and it's dulling your brain cell?
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
Again you are reading too much into what has been said. no hint at anything other than 'this is the current evidence' - the choice is yours. No compulsion and no nanny state. Funny the way alcohol seems to turn otherwise rational people into...oh wait.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
Nor is that what was done. You really are incredibly thick sometimes -or maybe you just had one too many and it's dulling your brain cell?
No , he is correct , they are halfwits. If they spent half as much time trying to cure people rather than telling lies about food and drink items it would be a far better place. I am sure many other items are far worse than beer or wine , exhaust fumes etc etc. These half wits change their minds on a regular basis and if you followed the guidance you would not be able to eat anything. Its just jobsworths making plenty out of propaganda, most of which they have plucked from their rear ends.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
Well said Sir
Oh dear - the killer bow for Mr. Meeks - a blackburn 63 endorsement
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
I agree, though the risks of low level drinking are social rather than physical in many cases.
To be constructive, I'd suggest the following structure:
1) drinking alcohol is never good for you. Not doing it is better for your health than doing it. Drinking less is always better than drinking more.
2) if you drink *this much*, you run appreciable risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
3) if you drink *This Much*, you run substantial risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
4) if you drink *THIS MUCH*, you can expect alcohol to cause you health problems in future.
That would be more informative and allow people to decide their own risk level.
The new wave of Asylum seekers in Germany and elsewhere are, in reality, largely made up of tens of thousands of unaccompanied young men looking for work and a better life. They have next to no roots in the community.
They have next to no opportunity to meet women, let alone form a relationship with one. They come from cultures where women are still treated like property, property which is safely guarded and deeply curtailed. They were invited in to a society where women go where they like, wear what they like, drink what they like and have sex with who they like (and quite right too).
What did people think was going to happen? I mean, really, the only thing surprising about Cologne and elsewhere is that this has not already happened on a larger scale. My expectation is that the seedier and more exploitive end of the sex trade will have been doing a roaring trade with these men, something which will hardly have helped give them a more rounded idea of the role and rights of females in our society.
None of this excuses or justifies criminal acts for which the perpetrators need to be held responsible but what all this shows is that integrating asylum seekers into a community is a tricky and difficult task which the State has not even come close to addressing. It is obviously unacceptable that women should have to bear the consequences of this. And the politics of these failures are dangerous.
@jimwaterson: How the right-wing BBC twisted my mind and made me quit the shadow cabinet, by the Labour MP who resigned on air: https://t.co/I9qAidI3fb
I am going to make a really awful terrible sexist comment. I'm a bad person OK. So don't kill me:
Would a male CMO have made such a trite, nannying, stupid pronouncement on alcohol? I think not.
The problem with CMOs is that they tend to get in the medical bubble. They look at everything from a wholly 'minimise risk' medical view point without taking broader societal or cultural imperatives into account. We all know smoking is bad. STFU about it - we can smoke if we want to. My terrible, dreadful, awful, unacceptable, ante-deluvian, demeaning, bad, bad, bad opinion is that on the whole men seem just a tad better at stepping back and looking at the big picture sometimes than women. Men seem just a tad better at understanding risk - as a % thing - and it's not necessarily always bad to take some on. There's benefits as well as costs to everything. Maybe enjoying life a bit is worth my cancer risk increasing from 49.6% to 50.1 %. Sue me.
God is that the police sirens already? I surrender. Guilty m'lud!
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
I agree, though the risks of low level drinking are social rather than physical in many cases.
To be constructive, I'd suggest the following structure:
1) drinking alcohol is never good for you. Not doing it is better for your health than doing it. Drinking less is always better than drinking more.
2) if you drink *this much*, you run appreciable risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
3) if you drink *This Much*, you run substantial risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
4) if you drink *THIS MUCH*, you can expect alcohol to cause you health problems in future.
That would be more informative and allow people to decide their own risk level.
Although those limits are going to vary from person to person.
I think you can get good health advice in ten words:
Eat and drink moderately, no smoking, exercise regularly, avoid stress.
Feminism is to me what Stop the War is to Jeremy. The criticism laid at my door is that I am not supporting the leader, but I have never voted against his whip and will do all I can to maintain that. I am a party worker ant – always have been, always will be. I wouldn’t be in my position without the party. But when I’m asked a question I will answer it honestly. There is no spin here. The trouble is, the people who never stuck to a line now see the benefits of it.
I have a cause too. And no, I am not going to shut up about it. Just like our leader didn’t shut up about his for years and years. I respect that. I am not being disloyal. I am being principled. Just call me Jeremy Corbyn.
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
We had been told (by the usual SNP supporting suspect) that flooding was not possible in Scotland because of the special and excellent way its water was managed in a way impossible for the English to comprehend. Whereas in fact large and sudden downpours are extremely difficult to deal with and in many cases anti flood measures only cause problems elsewhere.
Not saying it's especially professional, but there we are.
I'm a big fan if Chris Gayle the cricketer, and I've been to Jamaica, where the alpha male reigns supreme. I've also been a rugby-boy all my life, so I've spent a lifetime involved in intimate shenanigans with beautiful young girls.
I didn't like the Gayle interview though. It made me feel uncomfortable. There's nothing wrong with what he did if he'd done it in private, but he knew it was being broadcast and it came across as bullying. Unlike the Sharapova thing, there was nothing genuinely sweet and charming about it - it felt as though he was discomfiting the reporter just to flex his machismo.
I like people with a flirtatious nature and it's endearing when it's done well. I think Gayle strayed into pervy, predator territory though. And there's nothing charming about that.
I'm a bit disappointed really, because he is a proper cricketing character. I'm sure he's been stoned a few times in the T20 matches
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
You need to take a look at yourself , you will not be impressed. Pretty sick way of thinking to be lauding people's misfortunes just because Dair was wrong about something. What next you will be laughing at murders and accidental deaths when comments on the police or ambulance service. Sick Sick Sick.
Mr. Felix, I don't drink [well, hardly ever. I think the last time was perhaps 4-5 years ago]. I don't have a vested interest.
Pretending men and women can take the same amount (generally) is plain wrong.
I drink little also - I think the overall message is that alcohol has generally very few medical benefits for everyone and quite a number of potential dangers. I agree the messaging could be simpler and perhaps clearer but there is often a huge difference between the media 'spin' and what is actually being said. Rather like the hysterical nonsense from Blackburn63 this morning.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
I agree, though the risks of low level drinking are social rather than physical in many cases.
To be constructive, I'd suggest the following structure:
1) drinking alcohol is never good for you. Not doing it is better for your health than doing it. Drinking less is always better than drinking more.
2) if you drink *this much*, you run appreciable risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
3) if you drink *This Much*, you run substantial risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
4) if you drink *THIS MUCH*, you can expect alcohol to cause you health problems in future.
That would be more informative and allow people to decide their own risk level.
Mental or physical health?
Yes yes, I know alcohol is a "depressant", but it shakes things up and makes life interesting.
I've had some of the most fun experiences of my life whilst being on the sauce. The biggest risk is saying or doing something you later regret.
My advice would be: no more than 2 pints a day, at least 1 day off a week, and no more than one serious bender per month.
The fact that I am well within those limits personally is pure coincidence.
BAFTA 2016 nominations are out. All very ho-hum this year.
How Johnny Depp didn't make the shortlist for Best Actor for Black Mass is astonishing to me though. Maybe the Oscars will remedy it....
I'm surprised Eddie Redmayne was nominated. I found The Danish Girl meh.
And I found Carol painfully slow. And (heresy I know) Cate Blanchett's performance in it was strangely unconvincing as the cougar lesbian.
Good to see Ex Machina getting a few nods though. With a better ending (maybe a killer twist) it might have been up for Best Film. Worth watching for those who haven't seen it.
I think you can get good health advice in ten words:
Eat and drink moderately, no smoking, exercise regularly, avoid stress.
If you are being paid a fat wedge of tax payers money by the government to generate advice and public information campaigns, you won't stay employed very long with that approach. The numbers have to change every year or so to preserve peoples jobs, preferably preceded by lots of lengthy research
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
You need to take a look at yourself , you will not be impressed. Pretty sick way of thinking to be lauding people's misfortunes just because Dair was wrong about something. What next you will be laughing at murders and accidental deaths when comments on the police or ambulance service. Sick Sick Sick.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
I agree, though the risks of low level drinking are social rather than physical in many cases.
To be constructive, I'd suggest the following structure:
1) drinking alcohol is never good for you. Not doing it is better for your health than doing it. Drinking less is always better than drinking more.
2) if you drink *this much*, you run appreciable risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
3) if you drink *This Much*, you run substantial risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
4) if you drink *THIS MUCH*, you can expect alcohol to cause you health problems in future.
That would be more informative and allow people to decide their own risk level.
Although those limits are going to vary from person to person.
I think you can get good health advice in ten words:
Eat and drink moderately, no smoking, exercise regularly, avoid stress.
Exactly and given many countries and people like WHO give far higher numbers as good but also as you say give targets for where real harm ours etc it makes our amateur killjoys look like the halfwits they are. All people will do based on this barrage of guff is scoff at it and continue as they are , concluding rightly that they are exaggerating or blatantly lying. if they were so diligent on pesticides in food , exhaust fumes , etc etc you could see the point.
@MattChorley: For Sec Philip Hammond says he "cannot envisage" campaigning to leave EU if Cameron recommends staying in @BBCRadio4
Hammond probably saw what happened to that Labour bloke who disagreed with the boss.
No, he is taking a reasonable view in the round of Britain's economy and its place in the world.
No he isn't. If he was saying that then he would be making his decision based on his view of those things not based on whether or not his boss makes a recommendation. Is Hammond really saying he is so lacking in analytical ability that he needs to rely upon someone else's opinion to make a decision for him?
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
We had been told (by the usual SNP supporting suspect) that flooding was not possible in Scotland because of the special and excellent way its water was managed in a way impossible for the English to comprehend. Whereas in fact large and sudden downpours are extremely difficult to deal with and in many cases anti flood measures only cause problems elsewhere.
That hardly justifies exultation that Scotland has flooded, it only shows what a sick creep you are. Fine to laugh at Dair and his mistaken opinion , another thing to be happy that people are flooded out and suffering misery. Creepy Creepy Creepy.
Look at Corbynistas attacking the BBC. Reflect on how ridiculous they look. Isn't it outrageous when events are not reported in the way you would like?
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
I agree, though the risks of low level drinking are social rather than physical in many cases.
To be constructive, I'd suggest the following structure:
1) drinking alcohol is never good for you. Not doing it is better for your health than doing it. Drinking less is always better than drinking more.
2) if you drink *this much*, you run appreciable risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
3) if you drink *This Much*, you run substantial risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
4) if you drink *THIS MUCH*, you can expect alcohol to cause you health problems in future.
That would be more informative and allow people to decide their own risk level.
Mental or physical health?
Yes yes, I know alcohol is a "depressant", but it shakes things up and makes life interesting.
I've had some of the most fun experiences of my life whilst being on the sauce. The biggest risk is saying or doing something you later regret.
My advice would be: no more than 2 pints a day, at least 1 day off a week, and no more than one serious bender per month.
The fact that I am well within those limits personally is pure coincidence.
I don't waste my time counting units because it's apparent that the doctors don't really know what they're talking about when discussing the risks of the lower levels of alcohol consumption. My alcohol consumption is more determined by its impact on my weight - it's very calorific, so I moderate my intake of it based on that rather than on units. Right now since I'm dieting, alcohol is a no-no anyway.
Mr. Royale, well, quite, but treating people equally (except when there's a clear reason not to, such as not having male maternity beds, and not suggesting women and men drink the same amount) would be nice.
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
You need to take a look at yourself , you will not be impressed. Pretty sick way of thinking to be lauding people's misfortunes just because Dair was wrong about something. What next you will be laughing at murders and accidental deaths when comments on the police or ambulance service. Sick Sick Sick.
Grow up.
You are the one that needs to grow up chum, you do not even have the excuse that you are a spotty teenager rather than just being nasty.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.
It's not what govt is for.
err actually it is, its for the people who are too stupid to realise what they are doing, same for warnings on obesity and type 2 diabetes...., drugs .... the list is endless I'd draw the line if they said too much sex was bad for you.
So people are stupid, until drinking becomes illegal govt needs to shut the phuck up and get out of people's lives.
I can see that you are the type of person that would end up with sclerosis of the liver and then whine about the NHS and the treatment thereof.
...and we all pay for it as taxpayers. It's the governments duty to give advice (e.g smoking, AIDS), but it's a free country you don't have to take it.
Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.
And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.
If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?
If doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
I struggle to believe that there's a sharp uptick in its deleterious effects at a pint of beer a night and past evidence has shown that doctors are entirely willing more or less to make such limits up. They would do their own credibility the power of good if they focussed on stopping the worst harm rather than spoiling the social lives of half the country with killjoy pronouncements based on ethereal scientific evidence.
I agree, though the risks of low level drinking are social rather than physical in many cases.
To be constructive, I'd suggest the following structure:
1) drinking alcohol is never good for you. Not doing it is better for your health than doing it. Drinking less is always better than drinking more.
2) if you drink *this much*, you run appreciable risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
3) if you drink *This Much*, you run substantial risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
4) if you drink *THIS MUCH*, you can expect alcohol to cause you health problems in future.
That would be more informative and allow people to decide their own risk level.
Mental or physical health?
Yes yes, I know alcohol is a "depressant", but it shakes things up and makes life interesting.
I've had some of the most fun experiences of my life whilst being on the sauce. The biggest risk is saying or doing something you later regret.
My advice would be: no more than 2 pints a day, at least 1 day off a week, and no more than one serious bender per month.
The fact that I am well within those limits personally is pure coincidence.
The reason people find drink so attractive is that it is a depressant but depresses the higher functions first i.e. inhibitions and social control. Inhibit them and we parrttayy!
What do you mean by one serious bender a month - stomach pumping bender at the local A&E or a 'normal' bender - what the f did I do last night?
I know I drink to excess but am willing to put up with the likely consequences and have never used the NHS for alcohol related issues - as yet.
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
You need to take a look at yourself , you will not be impressed. Pretty sick way of thinking to be lauding people's misfortunes just because Dair was wrong about something. What next you will be laughing at murders and accidental deaths when comments on the police or ambulance service. Sick Sick Sick.
Grow up.
You are the one that needs to grow up chum, you do not even have the excuse that you are a spotty teenager rather than just being nasty.
I think you need to read what I wrote once more. I was laughing at Dair and the SNP, not the people who were flooded. You have to go through some fairly strained mental contortions to reach the view you have.
As for nasty: perhaps you should take a look in the mirror. Or even re-read the posts you have made today.
Come along, chaps. If you can't be civil, I'll be forced to write my prolonged thoughts on XCOM 2 [and whinge about it not (yet) coming out on consoles].
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
You need to take a look at yourself , you will not be impressed. Pretty sick way of thinking to be lauding people's misfortunes just because Dair was wrong about something. What next you will be laughing at murders and accidental deaths when comments on the police or ambulance service. Sick Sick Sick.
Grow up.
You are the one that needs to grow up chum, you do not even have the excuse that you are a spotty teenager rather than just being nasty.
I think you need to read what I wrote once more. I was laughing at Dair and the SNP, not the people who were flooded. You have to go through some fairly strained mental contortions to reach the view you have.
As for nasty: perhaps you should take a look in the mirror. Or even re-read the posts you have made today.
You try to muddy the waters , but you were not commenting spercifically on Dair , you have done it for several days now , you were speaking specifically about the SNP and Scotland. I note you do not even have the decency to admit you could have put it better at minimum but start blustering and trying to make out I am at fault. So no principles or moral fibre whatsoever. You have shown your true worth to be sure.
Mr. Richard, I feel massive sympathy for normal Muslims. They have extremist psychopaths shouting their god's name whilst murdering people, and politically correct liberal guilt-ridden cretins trying to do things they never asked for on their behalf.
I think you make a good point. You have to feel sorry for non secular Muslim women. We do no one any favours by not pointing out that Islam is stuck in the middle ages and its schisms have led to countless Muslim deaths all in the name of one brand of Islam or another.
My doctor always, always asks me about how much I drink when I go to see him. It actually puts me off going. I drink too much on occasions, most days I don't drink at all. I know the risks. I do not need lectures.
The reason people find drink so attractive is that it is a depressant but depresses the higher functions first i.e. inhibitions and social control. Inhibit them and we parrttayy!
What do you mean by one serious bender a month - stomach pumping bender at the local A&E or a 'normal' bender - what the f did I do last night?
I know I drink to excess but am willing to put up with the likely consequences and have never used the NHS for alcohol related issues - as yet.
Whilst I was working, I found an evening glass of wine or solitary bottle of beer helped me unwind. Rarely anything more than that, and not even every night. But if I was mentally shattered (*) then I'd sleep better after a little alcohol: it would help me switch off.
What price a better night's sleep?
There are so many sides to this debate, with so many throw-away lines: "anything in moderation," "rule the drink, don't let it rule you," etc.
When I was in my early twenties I smoked like a trooper, drank with the boys all the time, took ecstasy and weed and other drugs on weekends, ate absolutely crap (kept kebab shops in business), never missed work and played rugby in the Welsh Premiership. My wife and me laugh at the fact I used to fill a backpack with stones and go running up the hills. I was unbelievably fit.
Now I am a boring, middle-aged Dad who doesn't smoke and barely ever drinks (I drank once over Christmas), I eat porridge and seeds and almonds and spinach yet still put my hands over my eyes when I get on the weighing scales.. I'm overweight, unfit and pasty-looking and struggle to walk up the hill!
Drinking is bad for you, no doubt about it (and alcoholism is evil - I've seen that at first hand. It's as bad as heroin addiction). Smoking, drug taking and too much fast food is bad for you too - we don't need a doctor to tell us that. But when you're young you can get away with it. I'd advise people to enjoy themselves as much as they can when they're young and then moderate their behaviour when the hangovers start outweighing the fun bits.. Your body knows best.
I find the health advice to be simplistic because they take the worst case example. A small amount of alcohol is good for you (it increases HDL cholesterol) but that dosage is small and it depends on so many factors. We should be talking about alcohol in terms of mg/g of liver tissue (but body weight can serve as a surrogate).
And let's be honest, everyone knows that not exercising, and drinking and eating too much is bad for you. How many people, when told the smoking is bad, will exclaim ... "Oh, no, I never knew that - if only someone had told me earlier!"
@jimwaterson: How the right-wing BBC twisted my mind and made me quit the shadow cabinet, by the Labour MP who resigned on air: https://t.co/I9qAidI3fb
Well, hopefully that puts that issue to bed at least - I didn't think it was a big deal anyway, although there were some questions to be asked, but the account from the man himself makes it clear it was all perfectly above board.
Have I misread it? The story appears to be that Emily Thornberry should have boycotted a party in December because of allegations that were made last week. Is she the new Doctor?
Mr. Observer, the lecturing (from the CMO) annoy me. And they don't even affect me directly.
Mr. Wanderer, but generally men can more (I think it's fairly substantial). This new guideline suggests men and women have the same tolerance, and they don't.
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
You need to take a look at yourself , you will not be impressed. Pretty sick way of thinking to be lauding people's misfortunes just because Dair was wrong about something. What next you will be laughing at murders and accidental deaths when comments on the police or ambulance service. Sick Sick Sick.
Grow up.
You are the one that needs to grow up chum, you do not even have the excuse that you are a spotty teenager rather than just being nasty.
I think you can get good health advice in ten words:
Eat and drink moderately, no smoking, exercise regularly, avoid stress.
If you are being paid a fat wedge of tax payers money by the government to generate advice and public information campaigns, you won't stay employed very long with that approach. The numbers have to change every year or so to preserve peoples jobs, preferably preceded by lots of lengthy research
Indeed, and as the Today interview pointed out, why not pages and pages of advice on safe limits on various activities:
- cycling: no more than two miles a day in Central London, three miles a day elsewhere - motorcycling: only 10 miles a day on the twisties, five miles otherwise, one mile if a courier in London - skydiving: only five jumps per weekend
@MattChorley: For Sec Philip Hammond says he "cannot envisage" campaigning to leave EU if Cameron recommends staying in @BBCRadio4
Hammond probably saw what happened to that Labour bloke who disagreed with the boss.
No, he is taking a reasonable view in the round of Britain's economy and its place in the world.
No he isn't. If he was saying that then he would be making his decision based on his view of those things not based on whether or not his boss makes a recommendation. Is Hammond really saying he is so lacking in analytical ability that he needs to rely upon someone else's opinion to make a decision for him?
Maybe he trusts his judgement aware that he's the one in the negotiating room most of the time.
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
You need to take a look at yourself , you will not be impressed. Pretty sick way of thinking to be lauding people's misfortunes just because Dair was wrong about something. What next you will be laughing at murders and accidental deaths when comments on the police or ambulance service. Sick Sick Sick.
Grow up.
You are the one that needs to grow up chum, you do not even have the excuse that you are a spotty teenager rather than just being nasty.
I think you need to read what I wrote once more. I was laughing at Dair and the SNP, not the people who were flooded. You have to go through some fairly strained mental contortions to reach the view you have.
As for nasty: perhaps you should take a look in the mirror. Or even re-read the posts you have made today.
You try to muddy the waters , but you were not commenting spercifically on Dair , you have done it for several days now , you were speaking specifically about the SNP and Scotland. I note you do not even have the decency to admit you could have put it better at minimum but start blustering and trying to make out I am at fault. So no principles or moral fibre whatsoever. You have shown your true worth to be sure.
When I was in my early twenties I smoked like a trooper, drank with the boys all the time, took ecstasy and weed and other drugs on weekends, ate absolutely crap (kept kebab shops in business), never missed work and played rugby in the Welsh Premiership. My wife and me laugh at the fact I used to fill a backpack with stones and go running up the hills. I was unbelievably fit.
Now I am a boring, middle-aged Dad who doesn't smoke and barely ever drinks (I drank once over Christmas), I eat porridge and seeds and almonds and spinach yet still put my hands over my eyes when I get on the weighing scales.. I'm overweight, unfit and pasty-looking and struggle to walk up the hill!
Drinking is bad for you, no doubt about it (and alcoholism is evil - I've seen that at first hand. It's as bad as heroin addiction). Smoking, drug taking and too much fast food is bad for you too - we don't need a doctor to tell us that. But when you're young you can get away with it. I'd advise people to enjoy themselves as much as they can when they're young and then moderate their behaviour when the hangovers start outweighing the fun bits.. Your body knows best.
I am the same as you, without the running up hills bit. But I can't help feeling I'm fat and unfit now because I spent my 20s eating, drinking and smoking, and thinking I was getting away with it. The body is a bank. The deposits you make early in life build up with interest. That said, I had a superb time and would not do it differently.
I hope the SNP are going to complain about the BBC News headlines this morning, which are prominently featuring the flooding in Scotland. Except we all know (thanks to a sagacious poster on here) that flooding cannot occur in Scotland.
The BBC should apologise immediately for these lies. The scenes were obviously from England, and the Scottish accents meant it was probably filmed in a snowy and wet Corby.
You seem to be revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland, this is at least the second day you have been loving it. Extremely repulsive but not surprising.
I'm not revelling in the misfortune of people in Scotland. Quite the opposite I hope those flooded in both Scotland and England (and Wales if they've had flooding) recover as quickly as possible.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
You need to take a look at yourself , you will not be impressed. Pretty sick way of thinking to be lauding people's misfortunes just because Dair was wrong about something. What next you will be laughing at murders and accidental deaths when comments on the police or ambulance service. Sick Sick Sick.
Grow up.
You are the one that needs to grow up chum, you do not even have the excuse that you are a spotty teenager rather than just being nasty.
I think you need to read what I wrote once more. I was laughing at Dair and the SNP, not the people who were flooded. You have to go through some fairly strained mental contortions to reach the view you have.
As for nasty: perhaps you should take a look in the mirror. Or even re-read the posts you have made today.
You try to muddy the waters , but you were not commenting spercifically on Dair , you have done it for several days now , you were speaking specifically about the SNP and Scotland. I note you do not even have the decency to admit you could have put it better at minimum but start blustering and trying to make out I am at fault. So no principles or moral fibre whatsoever. You have shown your true worth to be sure.
My dear wife loves me so much that in light of these guidelines she is going to make me drive when we go out to dinner tonight and take the risk herself.
My doctor always, always asks me about how much I drink when I go to see him. It actually puts me off going. I drink too much on occasions, most days I don't drink at all. I know the risks. I do not need lectures.
However, not everyone is as self-aware as you and may just benefit from advice and guidance.
Mr. L, may I especially recommend Sir Edric's shenanigans, forthcoming this year, to you? He has a troubled relationship with his lady wife which you may find amusing
When I was in my early twenties I smoked like a trooper, drank with the boys all the time, took ecstasy and weed and other drugs on weekends, ate absolutely crap (kept kebab shops in business), never missed work and played rugby in the Welsh Premiership. My wife and me laugh at the fact I used to fill a backpack with stones and go running up the hills. I was unbelievably fit.
Now I am a boring, middle-aged Dad who doesn't smoke and barely ever drinks (I drank once over Christmas), I eat porridge and seeds and almonds and spinach yet still put my hands over my eyes when I get on the weighing scales.. I'm overweight, unfit and pasty-looking and struggle to walk up the hill!
Drinking is bad for you, no doubt about it (and alcoholism is evil - I've seen that at first hand. It's as bad as heroin addiction). Smoking, drug taking and too much fast food is bad for you too - we don't need a doctor to tell us that. But when you're young you can get away with it. I'd advise people to enjoy themselves as much as they can when they're young and then moderate their behaviour when the hangovers start outweighing the fun bits.. Your body knows best.
I am the same as you, without the running up hills bit. But I can't help feeling I'm fat and unfit now because I spent my 20s eating, drinking and smoking, and thinking I was getting away with it. The body is a bank. The deposits you make early in life build up with interest. That said, I had a superb time and would not do it differently.
I agree with that. I think I conned myself - by being so active - into believing I could get away with anything (my diet, even in my prime, was atrocious). Then I reached 31/32 and my body started to get its revenge.
The new wave of Asylum seekers in Germany and elsewhere are, in reality, largely made up of tens of thousands of unaccompanied young men looking for work and a better life. They have next to no roots in the community. .... etc...
Yes. I think all the points you make are fair and valid. However I am genuinely curious as to how many of these people are unaccompanied young men and just how many of them are the sort of characters who cause this trouble. I am wondering about the scale of the issue. But lest there be any confusion, I repeat I think the points you make are valid. I do wonder however just how different the broader community of these migrants is from the rest of us. (I must also add that I think the best place for these refugees is back in their camps close to the Syrian border)
Perhaps the advice should be honest ... Hey, you porkers, don't eat so much - you'll die early. It's not your glands it's because you're a greedy cnut.
When I was in my early twenties I smoked like a trooper, drank with the boys all the time, took ecstasy and weed and other drugs on weekends, ate absolutely crap (kept kebab shops in business), never missed work and played rugby in the Welsh Premiership. My wife and me laugh at the fact I used to fill a backpack with stones and go running up the hills. I was unbelievably fit.
Now I am a boring, middle-aged Dad who doesn't smoke and barely ever drinks (I drank once over Christmas), I eat porridge and seeds and almonds and spinach yet still put my hands over my eyes when I get on the weighing scales.. I'm overweight, unfit and pasty-looking and struggle to walk up the hill!
Drinking is bad for you, no doubt about it (and alcoholism is evil - I've seen that at first hand. It's as bad as heroin addiction). Smoking, drug taking and too much fast food is bad for you too - we don't need a doctor to tell us that. But when you're young you can get away with it. I'd advise people to enjoy themselves as much as they can when they're young and then moderate their behaviour when the hangovers start outweighing the fun bits.. Your body knows best.
I am the same as you, without the running up hills bit. But I can't help feeling I'm fat and unfit now because I spent my 20s eating, drinking and smoking, and thinking I was getting away with it. The body is a bank. The deposits you make early in life build up with interest. That said, I had a superb time and would not do it differently.
You are fat and unfit now, if indeed you are, because there is more of life now which gets in the way of a fitness routine, and the things that you were thin and fit for then are either unobtainable now (fit 20-yr olds) or you have obtained them (wife/partner).
Fitness has to become a part of your life's routine or it won't work (eg the proverbial new year gym memberships). Once the fitness side is sorted, the rest often falls into place.
To all those mid life porkies..don't bother with the gym stuff..just power walk for 30 mins every day..it rips the fat off..and improves the CV condition..then when you can see what you have in your underwear.. go try some repetitive toning exercises in a gym..
My doctor always, always asks me about how much I drink when I go to see him. It actually puts me off going. I drink too much on occasions, most days I don't drink at all. I know the risks. I do not need lectures.
My doctor always asks me exactly the same questions that the previous doctor has. I can't help wondering why no one seems to make a note of the answers - it would save everyone a lot of time.
I will add, re the doctor's advice... It's all well and good for them to point out the dangers of alcohol and smoking abuse, but they need to stop dishing out the codeine. I know so many young rugby players hooked on codeine. It's scary.
As hard as I lived my life when I was young, I never took any painkillers. We suffered our bumps, bruises and hangovers naturally.
When I was in my early twenties I smoked like a trooper, drank with the boys all the time, took ecstasy and weed and other drugs on weekends, ate absolutely crap (kept kebab shops in business), never missed work and played rugby in the Welsh Premiership. My wife and me laugh at the fact I used to fill a backpack with stones and go running up the hills. I was unbelievably fit.
Now I am a boring, middle-aged Dad who doesn't smoke and barely ever drinks (I drank once over Christmas), I eat porridge and seeds and almonds and spinach yet still put my hands over my eyes when I get on the weighing scales.. I'm overweight, unfit and pasty-looking and struggle to walk up the hill!
Drinking is bad for you, no doubt about it (and alcoholism is evil - I've seen that at first hand. It's as bad as heroin addiction). Smoking, drug taking and too much fast food is bad for you too - we don't need a doctor to tell us that. But when you're young you can get away with it. I'd advise people to enjoy themselves as much as they can when they're young and then moderate their behaviour when the hangovers start outweighing the fun bits.. Your body knows best.
I am the same as you, without the running up hills bit. But I can't help feeling I'm fat and unfit now because I spent my 20s eating, drinking and smoking, and thinking I was getting away with it. The body is a bank. The deposits you make early in life build up with interest. That said, I had a superb time and would not do it differently.
I agree with that. I think I conned myself - by being so active - into believing I could get away with anything (my diet, even in my prime, was atrocious). Then I reached 31/32 and my body started to get its revenge.
I believe it was Arnold Judas Rimmer who reflected when you're younger you can drink what you like, eat what you like and be fine, but then you reach a certain age, and with no warning whatsoever, you're suddenly a fat b*stard.
I don't drink, and never have beyond the occasional sip really (don't like the taste of most alcohols I've ever tried) and was always very small, then a few years ago, without having changed my habits at all food or exercise wise, I caught a glimpse of myself in a shop window and realised I'd somehow become quite plump, to my shock. You'd think you'd notice that sort of thing sooner.
Comments
GOVT WARNS SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU
Noooooooooooooo
They have next to no opportunity to meet women, let alone form a relationship with one. They come from cultures where women are still treated like property, property which is safely guarded and deeply curtailed. They were invited in to a society where women go where they like, wear what they like, drink what they like and have sex with who they like (and quite right too).
What did people think was going to happen? I mean, really, the only thing surprising about Cologne and elsewhere is that this has not already happened on a larger scale. My expectation is that the seedier and more exploitive end of the sex trade will have been doing a roaring trade with these men, something which will hardly have helped give them a more rounded idea of the role and rights of females in our society.
None of this excuses or justifies criminal acts for which the perpetrators need to be held responsible but what all this shows is that integrating asylum seekers into a community is a tricky and difficult task which the State has not even come close to addressing. It is obviously unacceptable that women should have to bear the consequences of this. And the politics of these failures are dangerous.
Oh, and we were called racist for suggesting such terrible things might happen.
If the South Yorkshire police had been there they would have been helping the attackers and threatening anyone who tried to report what had happened:
' The Conservative MP Nicola Blackwood said the committee had heard evidence in private from the Home Office researcher that her 2002 report had been greeted with hostility by South Yorkshire police. She said they had heard evidence that the researcher had been contacted by two officers who threatened to pass her name to the groomers in Rotherham and she had been left in fear of her life.
The Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert suggested to the current South Yorkshire chief constable, David Crompton, that there had been an active conspiracy involving police officers and questioned how the public could now trust South Yorkshire police.
Crompton said: "I'm absolutely committed to getting to the bottom of it. If there are any disciplinary matters, and some of these are being raised with me for the first time today, you have my absolute commitment we'll get to the bottom of it." Crompton said the police watchdog was looking into the conduct of police officers in the case of a 12-year-old sexual abuse victim who was arrested for being drunk when she was found in a derelict house with a group of men. '
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/09/researcher-rotherham-abuse-feared-for-life-police-visit
Parliament was told that 16 months ago and has there been any consequent action taken by Home Secretary Theresa May and Policing Minister Mike Penning ?
By all means pass a law that makes it illegal to drink 2 pints, otherwise shut up.
The sugar tax is the latest load of nonsense.
And that's without getting to Ralf Jaeger's view that being a tosser online is at least as bad as crimes that were perpetrated.
The incidence of sclerosis is undoubtedly increasing, particularly amongst certain groups. There is evidence that alcohol is physically or socially addictive and that people who drink moderately are vulnerable. It is probably also true that we mostly underestimate how much we drink since most drinking is now done in the house instead of a pub with fixed measures.
The first step forward is for the medical profession to try to regain credibility so they are listened to. I am not sure today is a good start in that direction.
But that is another thing which is deliberately overlooked.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35255384
I'm baffled by giving men and women the same limit. It's stupid two ways. First off, if you believe the male/female specific limits were too generalising, it makes no sense to generalise more. Secondly, it perpetuates the dangerous myth that women can (again, in general) keep up with men. Women have smaller bodies and less blood and, collectively, can take less drink.
Keeping up with men is probably what lands more women than men in hospital with alcohol poisoning. Apparently medical facts matter less than genuflecting before equality, even when equality literally doesn't exist.
Happy days
If you haven't listened to it, then do so, you won't regret it.
How Johnny Depp didn't make the shortlist for Best Actor for Black Mass is astonishing to me though. Maybe the Oscars will remedy it....
These half wits change their minds on a regular basis and if you followed the guidance you would not be able to eat anything. Its just jobsworths making plenty out of propaganda, most of which they have plucked from their rear ends.
I'm laughing at the extremely repulsive but not surprising attitude of some SNP supporters. To use your language.
1) drinking alcohol is never good for you. Not doing it is better for your health than doing it. Drinking less is always better than drinking more.
2) if you drink *this much*, you run appreciable risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
3) if you drink *This Much*, you run substantial risks of alcohol causing you health problems in future.
4) if you drink *THIS MUCH*, you can expect alcohol to cause you health problems in future.
That would be more informative and allow people to decide their own risk level.
Pretending men and women can take the same amount (generally) is plain wrong.
Would a male CMO have made such a trite, nannying, stupid pronouncement on alcohol? I think not.
The problem with CMOs is that they tend to get in the medical bubble. They look at everything from a wholly 'minimise risk' medical view point without taking broader societal or cultural imperatives into account. We all know smoking is bad. STFU about it - we can smoke if we want to. My terrible, dreadful, awful, unacceptable, ante-deluvian, demeaning, bad, bad, bad opinion is that on the whole men seem just a tad better at stepping back and looking at the big picture sometimes than women. Men seem just a tad better at understanding risk - as a % thing - and it's not necessarily always bad to take some on. There's benefits as well as costs to everything. Maybe enjoying life a bit is worth my cancer risk increasing from 49.6% to 50.1 %. Sue me.
God is that the police sirens already? I surrender. Guilty m'lud!
I think you can get good health advice in ten words:
Eat and drink moderately, no smoking, exercise regularly, avoid stress.
I didn't like the Gayle interview though. It made me feel uncomfortable. There's nothing wrong with what he did if he'd done it in private, but he knew it was being broadcast and it came across as bullying. Unlike the Sharapova thing, there was nothing genuinely sweet and charming about it - it felt as though he was discomfiting the reporter just to flex his machismo.
I like people with a flirtatious nature and it's endearing when it's done well. I think Gayle strayed into pervy, predator territory though. And there's nothing charming about that.
I'm a bit disappointed really, because he is a proper cricketing character. I'm sure he's been stoned a few times in the T20 matches
Sick Sick Sick.
Yes yes, I know alcohol is a "depressant", but it shakes things up and makes life interesting.
I've had some of the most fun experiences of my life whilst being on the sauce. The biggest risk is saying or doing something you later regret.
My advice would be: no more than 2 pints a day, at least 1 day off a week, and no more than one serious bender per month.
The fact that I am well within those limits personally is pure coincidence.
Good to see Ex Machina getting a few nods though. With a better ending (maybe a killer twist) it might have been up for Best Film. Worth watching for those who haven't seen it.
All people will do based on this barrage of guff is scoff at it and continue as they are , concluding rightly that they are exaggerating or blatantly lying.
if they were so diligent on pesticides in food , exhaust fumes , etc etc you could see the point.
*checks to see if wife is around*
I'd love Sharapova to compliment me on my form.
Works for me.
It's the governments duty to give advice (e.g smoking, AIDS), but it's a free country you don't have to take it.
What do you mean by one serious bender a month - stomach pumping bender at the local A&E or a 'normal' bender - what the f did I do last night?
I know I drink to excess but am willing to put up with the likely consequences and have never used the NHS for alcohol related issues - as yet.
As for nasty: perhaps you should take a look in the mirror. Or even re-read the posts you have made today.
What price a better night's sleep?
There are so many sides to this debate, with so many throw-away lines: "anything in moderation," "rule the drink, don't let it rule you," etc.
The only really important one is: "be sensible."
(*) Cue insult from Malc.
Now I am a boring, middle-aged Dad who doesn't smoke and barely ever drinks (I drank once over Christmas), I eat porridge and seeds and almonds and spinach yet still put my hands over my eyes when I get on the weighing scales.. I'm overweight, unfit and pasty-looking and struggle to walk up the hill!
Drinking is bad for you, no doubt about it (and alcoholism is evil - I've seen that at first hand. It's as bad as heroin addiction). Smoking, drug taking and too much fast food is bad for you too - we don't need a doctor to tell us that. But when you're young you can get away with it. I'd advise people to enjoy themselves as much as they can when they're young and then moderate their behaviour when the hangovers start outweighing the fun bits.. Your body knows best.
And let's be honest, everyone knows that not exercising, and drinking and eating too much is bad for you. How many people, when told the smoking is bad, will exclaim ... "Oh, no, I never knew that - if only someone had told me earlier!"
DOUGHTY: I will serve Corbyn dutifully
BBC: You could resign on air instead *evil laugh*
DOUGHTY: I will now do that
Mr. Wanderer, but generally men can more (I think it's fairly substantial). This new guideline suggests men and women have the same tolerance, and they don't.
- cycling: no more than two miles a day in Central London, three miles a day elsewhere
- motorcycling: only 10 miles a day on the twisties, five miles otherwise, one mile if a courier in London
- skydiving: only five jumps per weekend
etc...
I am indeed a lucky man.
I think all the points you make are fair and valid.
However I am genuinely curious as to how many of these people are unaccompanied young men and just how many of them are the sort of characters who cause this trouble. I am wondering about the scale of the issue.
But lest there be any confusion, I repeat I think the points you make are valid. I do wonder however just how different the broader community of these migrants is from the rest of us. (I must also add that I think the best place for these refugees is back in their camps close to the Syrian border)
Perhaps the advice should be honest ... Hey, you porkers, don't eat so much - you'll die early. It's not your glands it's because you're a greedy cnut.
Fitness has to become a part of your life's routine or it won't work (eg the proverbial new year gym memberships). Once the fitness side is sorted, the rest often falls into place.
As hard as I lived my life when I was young, I never took any painkillers. We suffered our bumps, bruises and hangovers naturally.
I don't drink, and never have beyond the occasional sip really (don't like the taste of most alcohols I've ever tried) and was always very small, then a few years ago, without having changed my habits at all food or exercise wise, I caught a glimpse of myself in a shop window and realised I'd somehow become quite plump, to my shock. You'd think you'd notice that sort of thing sooner.