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
Very kind. But for the avoidance of doubt I am indeed a very lucky man.
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.
I am indeed a lucky man.
while idly googling the stats behind this magnanimous gesture, I looked at road deaths in the UK which are much lower than I had imagined.
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.
That's always an issue with public health. My mum was deeply insulted in the 50s when a social worker called to check if she was giving me enough orange juice every day. The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts or don't like to think about them, and professionals need to check that they're taking risks in full understanding of the facts - especially when not just the individual but children are involved as in my mum's case. Probably if you told your GP what you've just told us and said with a smile that he was risking deterring you from seeing him, it would work?
Mr. Topping, Banner Saga comes out on the 12th [for consoles]. Quite looking forward to it (unsure if I'll wait to see if there are bugs, or get it right away). No price announcement, but there's hints it'll be around £10 only (it's a popular independent game that was crowd-funded. Unsure of length).
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?
Are you trying to say she did not know what this firm were doing? Why did she go? The plain fact is she was an ambulance chasing lawyer herself. Good luck to her chatting with squaddies.
Mr. Topping, Banner Saga comes out on the 12th [for consoles]. Quite looking forward to it (unsure if I'll wait to see if there are bugs, or get it right away). No price announcement, but there's hints it'll be around £10 only (it's a popular independent game that was crowd-funded. Unsure of length).
Mr. L, message received and understood
Mr Dancer
I have never played a computer game in my life (apart from Tetris for a bit on an Apple Mac).
I fear that would be the end of it were I to start.
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)
I am sure that the vast majority of these asylum seekers will be decent, moral people who would not dream of behaving in the manner that some of their cohorts do. But the risks are obvious and we are asking our women to take them. In fact we are not even asking. I agree with Cyclefree's observations on this over the last few days.
It seems to me that almost every development in these sad tales has vindicated our Government's approach to the issue. Serious and increasing support for the camps in theatre encouraging people to stay there. Doing what we can to discourage those wanting to travel here. Making it clear that we will take manageable numbers but from those in need in theatre, not those who have travelled thereby avoiding the pull factor and ensuring those we take are in small groups, not the mobs seen in Germany. They get very little credit for this, indeed they have been consistently attacked by supposedly more moral people like Yvette Cooper but they have been right.
That said I was told by one of my pals in the business that asylum claims in the UK are currently running at record levels. I think they said about 160 a day.
I know so many young rugby players hooked on codeine.
Like Hermann Goering, I believe.
Yep, and half of America, by all accounts.
It amazes me that the world can be so blase about an insidious legal drug like codeine yet come down like a tonne of bricks on a youngster recreationally taking an illegal party-drug once a month.
Corbyn demonstrates again and again that giving his fellow travellers jobs trumps any common sense.
A soldier suing Defence Sec? A vegan Agriculture Sec? A unilateralist running their defence review with another that wants to exit NATO A Trot as City Minister A man who wants to overthrow capitalism as Chancellor
No sketch writer would attempt anything so ludicrous.
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?
Are you trying to say she did not know what this firm were doing? Why did she go? The plain fact is she was an ambulance chasing lawyer herself. Good luck to her chatting with squaddies.
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
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 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.
I went down with the flu, and have been sick off work since Monday. Since the misses has gone down with it too, it's meant we've had to muck out our two horses together though - as they need doing. Codeine just about made it bearable !
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)
I am sure that the vast majority of these asylum seekers will be decent, moral people who would not dream of behaving in the manner that some of their cohorts do. But the risks are obvious and we are asking our women to take them. In fact we are not even asking. I agree with Cyclefree's observations on this over the last few days.
It seems to me that almost every development in these sad tales has vindicated our Government's approach to the issue. Serious and increasing support for the camps in theatre encouraging people to stay there. Doing what we can to discourage those wanting to travel here. Making it clear that we will take manageable numbers but from those in need in theatre, not those who have travelled thereby avoiding the pull factor and ensuring those we take are in small groups, not the mobs seen in Germany. They get very little credit for this, indeed they have been consistently attacked by supposedly more moral people like Yvette Cooper but they have been right.
That said I was told by one of my pals in the business that asylum claims in the UK are currently running at record levels. I think they said about 160 a day.
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.
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?
Are you trying to say she did not know what this firm were doing? Why did she go? The plain fact is she was an ambulance chasing lawyer herself. Good luck to her chatting with squaddies.
I'm trying to say the story was confusing. She went because the firm had given money to her office. The story appears to be saying not that she should have boycotted the party because of allegations made since then.
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.
I am indeed a lucky man.
while idly googling the stats behind this magnanimous gesture, I looked at road deaths in the UK which are much lower than I had imagined.
Interesting also is the dramatic no doubt GFC-related drop in road deaths in 2008 and the years following.
Ahem, we really don't have that much to talk about today, do we....
Well no one has resigned from the Labour front bench for ages and Corbyn is falling behind in his cock up quota by the simple expedient of going to ground and not really speaking at all.
What is GFC and what do you think happened in 2008? I agree the percentage drop over that and the 2 succeeding years is remarkable.
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.
I went down with the flu, and have been sick off work since Monday. Since the misses has gone down with it too, it's meant we've had to muck out our two horses together though - as they need doing. Codeine just about made it bearable !
I know how that is. My wife and her family are all horse-people.
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
I would say a period of silence from you about Scotland would be wise.
If you think I was making political points of other people's misery, then surely the same thing can be said for Dair's original comments?
But neither of us were. Dair made some silly Scotland-is-best comments that Mother Nature rapidly disproved.
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
I would say a period of silence from you about Scotland would be wise.
If you think I was making political points of other people's misery, then surely the same thing can be said for Dair's original comments?
But neither of us were. Dair made some silly Scotland-is-best comments that Mother Nature rapidly disproved.
A period of silence from everyone with regard to anything Scottish would be more than welcomed.
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)
I am sure that the vast majority of these asylum seekers will be decent, moral people who would not dream of behaving in the manner that some of their cohorts do. But the risks are obvious and we are asking our women to take them. In fact we are not even asking. I agree with Cyclefree's observations on this over the last few days.
It seems to me that almost every development in these sad tales has vindicated our Government's approach to the issue. Serious and increasing support for the camps in theatre encouraging people to stay there. Doing what we can to discourage those wanting to travel here. Making it clear that we will take manageable numbers but from those in need in theatre, not those who have travelled thereby avoiding the pull factor and ensuring those we take are in small groups, not the mobs seen in Germany. They get very little credit for this, indeed they have been consistently attacked by supposedly more moral people like Yvette Cooper but they have been right.
That said I was told by one of my pals in the business that asylum claims in the UK are currently running at record levels. I think they said about 160 a day.
In a word yes. There is an undeniable wall of misery and hardship. I heard on the radio this morning that there are rapidly increasing levels of frostbite, gangrene and bronchial infection amongst the refugees in central Europe where it is now seriously cold. There are no easy answers.
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.
I am indeed a lucky man.
while idly googling the stats behind this magnanimous gesture, I looked at road deaths in the UK which are much lower than I had imagined.
Interesting also is the dramatic no doubt GFC-related drop in road deaths in 2008 and the years following.
Ahem, we really don't have that much to talk about today, do we....
Well no one has resigned from the Labour front bench for ages and Corbyn is falling behind in his cock up quota by the simple expedient of going to ground and not really speaking at all.
What is GFC and what do you think happened in 2008? I agree the percentage drop over that and the 2 succeeding years is remarkable.
Global Financial Crisis - everyone had less money to do anything.
And yes, such paucity of news means I've had to resort to reading CiF where, interestingly also, it seems that a tide has been turned and an increasing proportion of btl Labour-supporting commentators are voicing robust, not to say coruscating criticism of Jezza. The responses of "Red Tory", meanwhile, are getting fewer.
If CiF is turning against him, surely Jezza's days are numbered...
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 tha 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.
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.
I am indeed a lucky man.
while idly googling the stats behind this magnanimous gesture, I looked at road deaths in the UK which are much lower than I had imagined.
Interesting also is the dramatic no doubt GFC-related drop in road deaths in 2008 and the years following.
Ahem, we really don't have that much to talk about today, do we....
Well no one has resigned from the Labour front bench for ages and Corbyn is falling behind in his cock up quota by the simple expedient of going to ground and not really speaking at all.
What is GFC and what do you think happened in 2008? I agree the percentage drop over that and the 2 succeeding years is remarkable.
Global Financial Crisis - everyone had less money to do anything.
And yes, such paucity of news means I've had to resort to reading CiF where, interestingly also, it seems that a tide has been turned and an increasing proportion of btl Labour-supporting commentators are voicing robust, not to say coruscating criticism of Jezza. The responses of "Red Tory", meanwhile, are getting fewer.
If CiF is turning against him, surely Jezza's days are numbered...
Sorry, should have got that but was looking for something more road related. Those that think the nanny state has no role to play might want to look at the column for motor cycle related deaths and the apparent success of the Think Bike campaign which seems to have saved hundreds of lives.
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.
I thought a bender was a two or more day thing a la those Ibiza TV shows?
Haven't done that ever. Getting blitzed and unable to recall chunks of night before or Unidentified Drinking Injuries or Who's That?!? the morning after - golly. Been years
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 doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
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 tha 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.
A period of silence from everyone with regard to anything Scottish would be more than welcomed.
On that note...
WingsOverSomerset has concluded that there is a dangerous surfeit of stupid in Bath, so he is exporting it via Twitter
He has published a list of the people he has blocked, and invites his acolytes to block the same list so their incestuous wank doesn't get polluted by facts or reason
There are some great names on the list
kevverage: Wings block list silences voices from: Guardian, BBC, Times, Sunday Herald, Scotsman, STV, Record, Mail & Express https://t.co/rQso7eE6ea
and I am happy to report that I too have made it onto the roll of honour, which is interesting because
1. I never followed Wings 2. therefore didn't know I had been blocked 3. Not sure how I came to his attention
It has however had one unfortunate consequence. The MP for Zoomer North and Runrig (AKA the stupidest MP at Westminster) has taken Rev Stu's advice and installed the "Na, na, I can't hear you" list so I am unable to rejoice in his witless outpourings any longer
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
I thought a bender was a two or more day thing a la those Ibiza TV shows?
Haven't done that ever. Getting blitzed and unable to recall chunks of night before or Unidentified Drinking Injuries or Who's That?!? the morning after - golly. Been years
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 doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
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 tha 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.
A normal bender :-)
You need to increase your fish product intake Plato
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.
Works for me.
It is not the purpose of life to have good health. The point of having good health is so that you can enjoy life.
I think doctors sometimes get this muddled up. Good wine now and again makes life enjoyable. So does good food and being in the fresh air. And many other things.
But the joyless straining to lose weight, get fit etc to the exclusion of joy and a sensual pleasure in life is not for me, I'm afraid.
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.
I am indeed a lucky man.
while idly googling the stats behind this magnanimous gesture, I looked at road deaths in the UK which are much lower than I had imagined.
Interesting also is the dramatic no doubt GFC-related drop in road deaths in 2008 and the years following.
Ahem, we really don't have that much to talk about today, do we....
Well no one has resigned from the Labour front bench for ages and Corbyn is falling behind in his cock up quota by the simple expedient of going to ground and not really speaking at all.
What is GFC and what do you think happened in 2008? I agree the percentage drop over that and the 2 succeeding years is remarkable.
Global Financial Crisis - everyone had less money to do anything.
And yes, such paucity of news means I've had to resort to reading CiF where, interestingly also, it seems that a tide has been turned and an increasing proportion of btl Labour-supporting commentators are voicing robust, not to say coruscating criticism of Jezza. The responses of "Red Tory", meanwhile, are getting fewer.
If CiF is turning against him, surely Jezza's days are numbered...
I hope not. Have you seen his interview on the skynews web page where he is quite insulting to teachers, saying they only need to be one book ahead of their pupils, and at the same time being quote dismissive of the brightest in a class. He is really quite stupid. Just as Brown was always madder than people realised I think Corbyn is definitely genuinely more stupid than he is being given credit for.
I thought a bender was a two or more day thing a la those Ibiza TV shows?
Haven't done that ever. Getting blitzed and unable to recall chunks of night before or Unidentified Drinking Injuries or Who's That?!? the morning after - golly. Been years
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 doctors want to say "drink is bad for you", that's fine. I expect most people have a sense of that anyway.
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 tha 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.
A normal bender :-)
You need to increase your fish product intake Plato
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.
The only really important one is: "be sensible."
(*) Cue insult from Malc.
Alcohol is not a very good sedative. It often sends people off to sleep well, but they wake up in the early hours and struggle to get back to sleep.
While alcohol relaxes inhibitions in social situations, relaxafion of inhibitions to violence or verbal abuse is in parallel. It seems many of the Stuttgart troublemakers had been drinking. The combination of lower inhibitions and crowd behaviour is not a good one.
Mr. Flightpath, indeed. Corbyn's plain stupid. It explains his policies, his desires (such as abolishing the armed forces like Costa Rica) and how he buggered up the reshuffle quite so badly.
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.
I am indeed a lucky man.
while idly googling the stats behind this magnanimous gesture, I looked at road deaths in the UK which are much lower than I had imagined.
Interesting also is the dramatic no doubt GFC-related drop in road deaths in 2008 and the years following.
Ahem, we really don't have that much to talk about today, do we....
While I was in India, I saw a stat that there are about 180,000 traffic-related deaths a year there. That is an extraordinary number (though not, it has to be said, one that's inconsistent with what I saw on the roads). True, India is a big country with a population of over a billion but still ...
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
I would say a period of silence from you about Scotland would be wise.
If you think I was making political points of other people's misery, then surely the same thing can be said for Dair's original comments?
But neither of us were. Dair made some silly Scotland-is-best comments that Mother Nature rapidly disproved.
A period of silence from everyone with regard to anything Scottish would be more than welcomed.
How dare English people comment on matter which affect the insurance premiums of all of Britain ?
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)
I am sure that the vast majority of these asylum seekers will be decent, moral people who would not dream of behaving in the manner that some of their cohorts do. But the risks are obvious and we are asking our women to take them. In fact we are not even asking. I agree with Cyclefree's observations on this over the last few days.
It seems to me that almost every development in these sad tales has vindicated our Government's approach to the issue. Serious and increasing support for the camps in theatre encouraging people to stay there. Doing what we can to discourage those wanting to travel here. Making it clear that we will take manageable numbers but from those in need in theatre, not those who have travelled thereby avoiding the pull factor and ensuring those we take are in small groups, not the mobs seen in Germany. They get very little credit for this, indeed they have been consistently attacked by supposedly more moral people like Yvette Cooper but they have been right.
That said I was told by one of my pals in the business that asylum claims in the UK are currently running at record levels. I think they said about 160 a day.
160 x 250 working days = 40,000. This would compare with 25k applications in the year ending June 2015. Last year 41% were initially accepted and a further 2% following appeal so that would be about 17k
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.
The only really important one is: "be sensible."
(*) Cue insult from Malc.
Alcohol is not a very good sedative. It often sends people off to sleep well, but they wake up in the early hours and struggle to get back to sleep.
While alcohol relaxes inhibitions in social situations, relaxafion of inhibitions to violence or verbal abuse is in parallel. It seems many of the Stuttgart troublemakers had been drinking. The combination of lower inhibitions and crowd behaviour is not a good one.
I feel sorry for people who don't drink; when they wake up in the morning it's the best they're going to feel all day.
To try and draw a political link (!) - I'd never vote for a tee-totaller (good job I wouldn't have voted for Corbyn anyway huh?). I'd have made an exception for Dubya, because he drank enough before he was 30 to last anyone a lifetime.
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.
That's always an issue with public health. My mum was deeply insulted in the 50s when a social worker called to check if she was giving me enough orange juice every day. The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts or don't like to think about them, and professionals need to check that they're taking risks in full understanding of the facts - especially when not just the individual but children are involved as in my mum's case. Probably if you told your GP what you've just told us and said with a smile that he was risking deterring you from seeing him, it would work?
"The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts". That REALLY is the problem.
We are not given the evidence on drinking, just an instruction, and we're supposed to take it on trust.
To make an informed judgement on whether to cut down on my drinking from say 28 to 21 units a week I need to know what effect the evidence shows that has on my life expectancy. Then I can make an informed tradeoff.
Alcohol allegedly increases the chances of dying of cancer and possibly heart disease. (I suspect there is real evidence for this). So drinking alcohol must DECREASE the chances of dying from some other causes including dementia as there is100% chance of my dying.
So if I cut my drinking from 28 to 21 units a week by how much does it INCREASE my chance of dying of dementia? As a punter, these are the sort of facts I need because I personally want to apply the tradeoff between enjoying alcohol and the consequences, and not rely on some professional who doesn't know my preferences.
NB Data that compares mortality of people drinking over 21 units a week with those drinking under 21 are of no use because the former includes people drinking over 100 units a week. It needs to be stratified to be of any use.
I am aware of the phenomemon of denial. I'm also aware of the phenomemon of confirmation bias in professionals attracted into this area. I'd just like some objective facts so I can decide for myself.
Mr. Herdson, when I was in China they drove like maniacs.
The secret, when cycling in large cities in China, I found, was not to look the oncoming bus driver in the eyes. If he thought you hadn't seen him, he would take action to avoid you; if he thought you knew he was there, it was up to you...
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.
I am indeed a lucky man.
while idly googling the stats behind this magnanimous gesture, I looked at road deaths in the UK which are much lower than I had imagined.
Interesting also is the dramatic no doubt GFC-related drop in road deaths in 2008 and the years following.
Ahem, we really don't have that much to talk about today, do we....
While I was in India, I saw a stat that there are about 180,000 traffic-related deaths a year there. That is an extraordinary number (though not, it has to be said, one that's inconsistent with what I saw on the roads). True, India is a big country with a population of over a billion but still ...
We would be roughly 35K if we had India's population so more than 4x.
I remember reading more than 1 article which suggested that devout Hindus believed in karma or fate so much that taking steps like putting your lights on at night was a bit of a waste of time. If it was your time, it was your time and if it wasn't nothing could happen. Seemed unlikely to me but I have not been there.
Alternatively, it might be suggested that all of these intensely irritating traffic calming measures, bus lanes etc actually work. This is getting really depressing.
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.
The only really important one is: "be sensible."
(*) Cue insult from Malc.
Alcohol is not a very good sedative. It often sends people off to sleep well, but they wake up in the early hours and struggle to get back to sleep.
While alcohol relaxes inhibitions in social situations, relaxafion of inhibitions to violence or verbal abuse is in parallel. It seems many of the Stuttgart troublemakers had been drinking. The combination of lower inhibitions and crowd behaviour is not a good one.
I didn't say it was a sedative: but it does allow me to switch off. If I've spent a day tackling some peculiarly nasty code (say, spaghetti code) then I find it very hard to switch off from that problem even a few hours later. I often lie in bed thinking about it. This is particularly bad if I have not had any physical exercise that day.
A glass of wine or a bottle of beer seems to act like a switch that allows my mind to relax and move on to less rigorous matters.
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.
The only really important one is: "be sensible."
(*) Cue insult from Malc.
Alcohol is not a very good sedative. It often sends people off to sleep well, but they wake up in the early hours and struggle to get back to sleep.
While alcohol relaxes inhibitions in social situations, relaxafion of inhibitions to violence or verbal abuse is in parallel. It seems many of the Stuttgart troublemakers had been drinking. The combination of lower inhibitions and crowd behaviour is not a good one.
I think it is possible to train oneself to be a "good drunk" and remain well-disposed towards others inspite of the lowering of one's inhibitions.
They should teach this in schools really. You can't start too young.
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.
That's always an issue with public health. My mum was deeply insulted in the 50s when a social worker called to check if she was giving me enough orange juice every day. The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts or don't like to think about them, and professionals need to check that they're taking risks in full understanding of the facts - especially when not just the individual but children are involved as in my mum's case. Probably if you told your GP what you've just told us and said with a smile that he was risking deterring you from seeing him, it would work?
"The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts". That REALLY is the problem.
We are not given the evidence on drinking, just an instruction, and we're supposed to take it on trust.
To make an informed judgement on whether to cut down on my drinking from say 28 to 21 units a week I need to know what effect the evidence shows that has on my life expectancy. Then I can make an informed tradeoff.
Alcohol allegedly increases the chances of dying of cancer and possibly heart disease. (I suspect there is real evidence for this). So drinking alcohol must DECREASE the chances of dying from some other causes including dementia as there is100% chance of my dying.
So if I cut my drinking from 28 to 21 units a week by how much does it INCREASE my chance of dying of dementia? As a punter, these are the sort of facts I need because I personally want to apply the tradeoff between enjoying alcohol and the consequences, and not rely on some professional who doesn't know my preferences.
NB Data that compares mortality of people drinking over 21 units a week with those drinking under 21 are of no use because the former includes people drinking over 100 units a week. It needs to be stratified to be of any use.
I am aware of the phenomemon of denial. I'm also aware of the phenomemon of confirmation bias in professionals attracted into this area. I'd just like some objective facts so I can decide for myself.
Drinking less won't make you live longer - it'll just feel longer....
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.
I am indeed a lucky man.
while idly googling the stats behind this magnanimous gesture, I looked at road deaths in the UK which are much lower than I had imagined.
Interesting also is the dramatic no doubt GFC-related drop in road deaths in 2008 and the years following.
Ahem, we really don't have that much to talk about today, do we....
While I was in India, I saw a stat that there are about 180,000 traffic-related deaths a year there. That is an extraordinary number (though not, it has to be said, one that's inconsistent with what I saw on the roads). True, India is a big country with a population of over a billion but still ...
In Pakistan, every lane is an overtaking lane, including the ones with oncoming traffic.
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?
The allegations about Leigh Day have been in the public domain for some time now. She's a lawyer. Turning a blind eye is not a good position for a lawyer married to a judge who was the Shadow Attorney-General to be in.
Though she would not be the first Labour lawyer-politician to turn a blind eye to legal requirements. (Cough *Baroness Scotland* cough).
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
So was Dair, which is the point.
He did not make the point in that way , he was gloating over people's misery due to his political bent and disregard of Scotland.
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)
I am sure that the vast majority of these asylum seekers will be decent, moral people who would not dream of behaving in the manner that some of their cohorts do. But the risks are obvious and we are asking our women to take them. In fact we are not even asking. I agree with Cyclefree's observations on this over the last few days.
It seems to me that almost every development in these sad tales has vindicated our Government's approach to the issue. Serious and increasing support for the camps in theatre encouraging people to stay there. Doing what we can to discourage those wanting to travel here. Making it clear that we will take manageable numbers but from those in need in theatre, not those who have travelled thereby avoiding the pull factor and ensuring those we take are in small groups, not the mobs seen in Germany. They get very little credit for this, indeed they have been consistently attacked by supposedly more moral people like Yvette Cooper but they have been right.
That said I was told by one of my pals in the business that asylum claims in the UK are currently running at record levels. I think they said about 160 a day.
160 x 250 working days = 40,000. This would compare with 25k applications in the year ending June 2015. Last year 41% were initially accepted and a further 2% following appeal so that would be about 17k
Yep. Although it is increasing asylum remains an almost incidental feature of our immigration. Last year that was over 300K net, something nearer half a million gross. Roughly 3%.
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.
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.
Works for me.
It is not the purpose of life to have good health. The point of having good health is so that you can enjoy life.
I think doctors sometimes get this muddled up. Good wine now and again makes life enjoyable. So does good food and being in the fresh air. And many other things.
But the joyless straining to lose weight, get fit etc to the exclusion of joy and a sensual pleasure in life is not for me, I'm afraid.
Not even for the 3 or 4 extra months of miserable life that you would get as a reward.
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)
Given that young German women seem to be unused to this type of behaviour, I'd say that it's not common among young German men.
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
So was Dair, which is the point.
He did not make the point in that way , he was gloating over people's misery due to his political bent and disregard of Scotland.
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)
Given that young German women seem to be unused to this type of behaviour, I'd say that it's not common among young German men.
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.
Strangely enough, I think I'm almost as fit at the age of 48 as I was at 25, despite putting on about 4 stone. I don't ever lose my breath walking uphill, or walking long distances. I think it's because I always have tended to walk a lot every day.
While we're on the subject, I used to have a Pret chicken caesar and bacon baguette every day. Every day. For lunch.
I went away for a couple of weeks and when I came back and tried one, I could barely eat it because it was so salty, which I hadn't noticed/had got used to when I was eating them regularly.
What daily limit would you put on Pret chicken caesar and bacon baguettes, eh, Sally?
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.
That's always an issue with public health. My mum was deeply insulted in the 50s when a social worker called to check if she was giving me enough orange juice every day. The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts or don't like to think about them, and professionals need to check that they're taking risks in full understanding of the facts - especially when not just the individual but children are involved as in my mum's case. Probably if you told your GP what you've just told us and said with a smile that he was risking deterring you from seeing him, it would work?
"The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts". That REALLY is the problem.
We are not given the evidence on drinking, just an instruction, and we're supposed to take it on trust.
To make an informed judgement on whether to cut down on my drinking from say 28 to 21 units a week I need to know what effect the evidence shows that has on my life expectancy. Then I can make an informed tradeoff.
Alcohol allegedly increases the chances of dying of cancer and possibly heart disease. (I suspect there is real evidence for this). So drinking alcohol must DECREASE the chances of dying from some other causes including dementia as there is100% chance of my dying.
So if I cut my drinking from 28 to 21 units a week by how much does it INCREASE my chance of dying of dementia? As a punter, these are the sort of facts I need because I personally want to apply the tradeoff between enjoying alcohol and the consequences, and not rely on some professional who doesn't know my preferences.
NB Data that compares mortality of people drinking over 21 units a week with those drinking under 21 are of no use because the former includes people drinking over 100 units a week. It needs to be stratified to be of any use.
I am aware of the phenomemon of denial. I'm also aware of the phenomemon of confirmation bias in professionals attracted into this area. I'd just like some objective facts so I can decide for myself.
One thing is for sure , it is a load of bollocks and in isolation means absolutely nothing as you point out. It is meaningless drivel that does not help anyone to make an informed choice , rather just makes you think these people are just jobsworths spouting cheap mumbo jumbo as science. Everyone knows if you spend all day eating fast food, smoking and drinking you are harming your self , the millions of other permutations are completely variable.
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
So was Dair, which is the point.
He did not make the point in that way , he was gloating over people's misery due to his political bent and disregard of Scotland.
No, I was not.
Well that was how it came across from the way you portrayed it.
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)
I am sure that the vast majority of these asylum seekers will be decent, moral people who would not dream of behaving in the manner that some of their cohorts do. But the risks are obvious and we are asking our women to take them. In fact we are not even asking. I agree with Cyclefree's observations on this over the last few days.
That said I was told by one of my pals in the business that asylum claims in the UK are currently running at record levels. I think they said about 160 a day.
160 x 250 working days = 40,000. This would compare with 25k applications in the year ending June 2015. Last year 41% were initially accepted and a further 2% following appeal so that would be about 17k
Yep. Although it is increasing asylum remains an almost incidental feature of our immigration. Last year that was over 300K net, something nearer half a million gross. Roughly 3%.
Whereas Sweden took in a number equivalent to 2% of their population. Whatever complaints we may have about our political establishment, they're infinitely better than their Swedish equivalent.
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.
That's always an issue with public health. My mum was deeply insulted in the 50s when a social worker called to check if she was giving me enough orange juice every day. The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts or don't like to think about them, and professionals need to check that they're taking risks in full understanding of the facts - especially when not just the individual but children are involved as in my mum's case. Probably if you told your GP what you've just told us and said with a smile that he was risking deterring you from seeing him, it would work?
"The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts". That REALLY is the problem.
We are not given the evidence on drinking, just an instruction, and we're supposed to take it on trust.
To make an informed judgement on whether to cut down on my drinking from say 28 to 21 units a week I need to know what effect the evidence shows that has on my life expectancy. Then I can make an informed tradeoff.
Alcohol allegedly increases the chances of dying of cancer and possibly heart disease. (I suspect there is real evidence for this). So drinking alcohol must DECREASE the chances of dying from some other causes including dementia as there is100% chance of my dying.
So if I cut my drinking from 28 to 21 units a week by how much does it INCREASE my chance of dying of dementia? As a punter, these are the sort of facts I need because I personally want to apply the tradeoff between enjoying alcohol and the consequences, and not rely on some professional who doesn't know my preferences.
NB Data that compares mortality of people drinking over 21 units a week with those drinking under 21 are of no use because the former includes people drinking over 100 units a week. It needs to be stratified to be of any use.
I am aware of the phenomemon of denial. I'm also aware of the phenomemon of confirmation bias in professionals attracted into this area. I'd just like some objective facts so I can decide for myself.
Everyone knows if you spend all day eating fast food, smoking and drinking you are...
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.
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.
Works for me.
It is not the purpose of life to have good health. The point of having good health is so that you can enjoy life.
I think doctors sometimes get this muddled up. Good wine now and again makes life enjoyable. So does good food and being in the fresh air. And many other things.
But the joyless straining to lose weight, get fit etc to the exclusion of joy and a sensual pleasure in life is not for me, I'm afraid.
Not even for the 3 or 4 extra months of miserable life that you would get as a reward.
Nope. I want to make the most of every minute then go to sleep one night and not wake up or maybe while having a nap in the garden after a good lunch.
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
So was Dair, which is the point.
He did not make the point in that way , he was gloating over people's misery due to his political bent and disregard of Scotland.
No, I was not.
Well that was how it came across from the way you portrayed it.
Only because you seem to have a problem in comprehending English. Or perhaps because you just want an argument.
If I felt that's what I'd done then I'd freely apologise. But I'm not going to, (or even give a stupid I'm-sorry-to-cause-offence apology) because I did not do anything wrong.
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.
The only really important one is: "be sensible."
(*) Cue insult from Malc.
Alcohol is not a very good sedative. It often sends people off to sleep well, but they wake up in the early hours and struggle to get back to sleep.
While alcohol relaxes inhibitions in social situations, relaxafion of inhibitions to violence or verbal abuse is in parallel. It seems many of the Stuttgart troublemakers had been drinking. The combination of lower inhibitions and crowd behaviour is not a good one.
I didn't say it was a sedative: but it does allow me to switch off. If I've spent a day tackling some peculiarly nasty code (say, spaghetti code) then I find it very hard to switch off from that problem even a few hours later. I often lie in bed thinking about it. This is particularly bad if I have not had any physical exercise that day.
A glass of wine or a bottle of beer seems to act like a switch that allows my mind to relax and move on to less rigorous matters.
That is because you enjoy it and it makes you happy , therefore relaxed. As long as you are not going over the top then it is great. I have to say though as you get older ( ie old codger like me) it does mean you wake up during the night due to full bladder but that is a price worth paying.
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.
I am indeed a lucky man.
while idly googling the stats behind this magnanimous gesture, I looked at road deaths in the UK which are much lower than I had imagined.
Interesting also is the dramatic no doubt GFC-related drop in road deaths in 2008 and the years following.
Ahem, we really don't have that much to talk about today, do we....
While I was in India, I saw a stat that there are about 180,000 traffic-related deaths a year there. That is an extraordinary number (though not, it has to be said, one that's inconsistent with what I saw on the roads). True, India is a big country with a population of over a billion but still ...
In Pakistan, every lane is an overtaking lane, including the ones with oncoming traffic.
Tamil Nadu also. Similarly, junction priority markings have been rendered redundant by the innovation of a couple of beeps on the horn before zapping through.
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.
That's always an issue with public health. My mum was deeply insulted in the 50s when a social worker called to check if she was giving me enough orange juice every day. The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts or don't like to think about them, and professionals need to check that they're taking risks in full understanding of the facts - especially when not just the individual but children are involved as in my mum's case. Probably if you told your GP what you've just told us and said with a smile that he was risking deterring you from seeing him, it would work?
"The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts". That REALLY is the problem.
We are not given the evidence on drinking, just an instruction, and we're supposed to take it on trust.
To make an informed judgement on whether to cut down on my drinking from say 28 to 21 units a week I need to know what effect the evidence shows that has on my life expectancy. Then I can make an informed tradeoff.
Alcohol allegedly increases the chances of dying of cancer and possibly heart disease. (I suspect there is real evidence for this). So drinking alcohol must DECREASE the chances of dying from some other causes including dementia as there is100% chance of my dying.
So if I cut my drinking from 28 to 21 units a week by how much does it INCREASE my chance of dying of dementia? As a punter, these are the sort of facts I need because I personally want to apply the tradeoff between enjoying alcohol and the consequences, and not rely on some professional who doesn't know my preferences.
NB Data that compares mortality of people drinking over 21 units a week with those drinking under 21 are of no use because the former includes people drinking over 100 units a week. It needs to be stratified to be of any use.
I am aware of the phenomemon of denial. I'm also aware of the phenomemon of confirmation bias in professionals attracted into this area. I'd just like some objective facts so I can decide for myself.
Everyone knows if you spend all day eating fast food, smoking and drinking you are...
... a typical Scot.
Makes me atypical then , huzzah! You are on form today I must say.
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.
The only really important one is: "be sensible."
(*) Cue insult from Malc.
Alcohol is not a very good sedative. It often sends people off to sleep well, but they wake up in the early hours and struggle to get back to sleep.
While alcohol relaxes inhibitions in social situations, relaxafion of inhibitions to violence or verbal abuse is in parallel. It seems many of the Stuttgart troublemakers had been drinking. The combination of lower inhibitions and crowd behaviour is not a good one.
I didn't say it was a sedative: but it does allow me to switch off. If I've spent a day tackling some peculiarly nasty code (say, spaghetti code) then I find it very hard to switch off from that problem even a few hours later. I often lie in bed thinking about it. This is particularly bad if I have not had any physical exercise that day.
A glass of wine or a bottle of beer seems to act like a switch that allows my mind to relax and move on to less rigorous matters.
I can identify with that. There's something about concentrating hard on code that makes me crave beer
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)
Given that young German women seem to be unused to this type of behaviour, I'd say that it's not common among young German men.
Even if they were used to it, so what? It's wrong. That's all. It's not something to get used to or to get round or to find ways to avoid. It's wrong. How fucking difficult is it for politicians and others (not you) to understand this simple bloody point??
I agree wholeheartedly with what @DavidL wrote below. The only point I would take issue with him is this: it's not an issue of how we integrate these migrants. The first and most important question we should be asking ourselves is whether we should be inviting them into our countries at all, given the well-known problems there are in the states and communities from which they come. Integration of those limited few we do let in comes later.
My grandfather was an infantry private at the battle of the Somme and died in the 1960s. It doesn't mean that there was no risk at the Somme, just as some people are lucky enough to get away with it!
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.
That's always an issue with public health. My mum was deeply insulted in the 50s when a social worker called to check if she was giving me enough orange juice every day. The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts or don't like to think about them, and professionals need to check that they're taking risks in full understanding of the facts - especially when not just the individual but children are involved as in my mum's case. Probably if you told your GP what you've just told us and said with a smile that he was risking deterring you from seeing him, it would work?
"The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts". That REALLY is the problem.
We are not given the evidence on drinking, just an instruction, and we're supposed to take it on trust.
To make an informed judgement on whether to cut down on my drinking from say 28 to 21 units a week I need to know what effect the evidence shows that has on my life expectancy. Then I can make an informed tradeoff.
Alcohol allegedly increases the chances of dying of cancer and possibly heart disease. (I suspect there is real evidence for this). So drinking alcohol must DECREASE the chances of dying from some other causes including dementia as there is100% chance of my dying.
I am aware of the phenomemon of denial. I'm also aware of the phenomemon of confirmation bias in professionals attracted into this area. I'd just like some objective facts so I can decide for myself.
One thing is for sure , it is a load of bollocks and in isolation means absolutely nothing as you point out. It is meaningless drivel that does not help anyone to make an informed choice , rather just makes you think these people are just jobsworths spouting cheap mumbo jumbo as science. Everyone knows if you spend all day eating fast food, smoking and drinking you are harming your self , the millions of other permutations are completely variable.
Good morning all. My love affair with booze ended about ten years ago. Odd, in that I didn't make a conscious decision (unlike when I gave up the drugs & ciggies). A while back my step-daughter mentioned to a friend (within hearing) "John's teetotal"...and I thought, yea I suppose I am .
For those complaining; we're going to be inundated with this kind of thing. Given the projected rise in healthcare costs, the state will be frantically thrashing around in a vain attempt to ensure that we'll all be fit and healthy old 'uns. Better than the Logan's Run scenario, I suppose.
My grandfather was an infantry private at the battle of the Somme and died in the 1960s. It doesn't mean that there was no risk at the Somme, just as some people are lucky enough to get away with it!
Speaking of the Somme, it's 100th anniversary this year may be a political event of some significance.
Cameron and Corbyn will mark it very different ways, I suspect. The Somme is at the heart of a certain strand of British pacifism which Corbyn might tap into, but I expect he'll manage to strike the wrong note (going out on a limb here).
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
I bought a little tin of reduced sugar Heinz beans as a nostalgia treat and couldn't eat them. Horribly sweet. The full version makes my fillings wince.
While we're on the subject, I used to have a Pret chicken caesar and bacon baguette every day. Every day. For lunch.
I went away for a couple of weeks and when I came back and tried one, I could barely eat it because it was so salty, which I hadn't noticed/had got used to when I was eating them regularly.
What daily limit would you put on Pret chicken caesar and bacon baguettes, eh, Sally?
My grandfather was an infantry private at the battle of the Somme and died in the 1960s. It doesn't mean that there was no risk at the Somme, just as some people are lucky enough to get away with it!
Speaking of the Somme, it's 100th anniversary this year may be a political event of some significance.
Cameron and Corbyn will mark it very different ways, I suspect. The Somme is at the heart of a certain strand of British pacifism which Corbyn might tap into, but I expect he'll manage to strike the wrong note (going out on a limb here).
Indeed - but Mr Meeks has perceptively noted that the Easter Rising comes first.
Other 2016 anniversaries that Corbyn could well cock up include, in chronological order:
Liberation of Kuwait (25th) Einstein's theory of relativity (100th) Death of Shakespeare (400th) England winning the World Cup (50th) Terry Waite's homecoming (25th) Attack on Pearl Harbor (75th) Birth of Jesus Christ (2016th)
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)
Given that young German women seem to be unused to this type of behaviour, I'd say that it's not common among young German men.
Even if they were used to it, so what? It's wrong. That's all. It's not something to get used to or to get round or to find ways to avoid. It's wrong. How fucking difficult is it for politicians and others (not you) to understand this simple bloody point??
I agree wholeheartedly with what @DavidL wrote below. The only point I would take issue with him is this: it's not an issue of how we integrate these migrants. The first and most important question we should be asking ourselves is whether we should be inviting them into our countries at all, given the well-known problems there are in the states and communities from which they come. Integration of those limited few we do let in comes later.
Certainly. The point about integration is indissociable from the point about numbers. Take in one million people in one year, and the likelihood of integration is very small.
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.
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.
Works for me.
It is not the purpose of life to have good health. The point of having good health is so that you can enjoy life.
I think doctors sometimes get this muddled up. Good wine now and again makes life enjoyable. So does good food and being in the fresh air. And many other things.
But the joyless straining to lose weight, get fit etc to the exclusion of joy and a sensual pleasure in life is not for me, I'm afraid.
Not even for the 3 or 4 extra months of miserable life that you would get as a reward.
Nope. I want to make the most of every minute then go to sleep one night and not wake up or maybe while having a nap in the garden after a good lunch.
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
So was Dair, which is the point.
He did not make the point in that way , he was gloating over people's misery due to his political bent and disregard of Scotland.
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
So was Dair, which is the point.
He did not make the point in that way , he was gloating over people's misery due to his political bent and disregard of Scotland.
Dair was gloating over flooded English people's misery because he perceived England to be inferior to Scotland.
JJ was gloating over Dair's discomfort at discovering that it turned out that Scotland was no better off than England.
With a due respect to the Dr Sox and any other luking medicos, I cannot take these general medical "guidelines" terribly seriously. In the first place they change so often. What was once held to be good for us suddenly becomes bad for us and sometimes good for us again (and in the case of red wine apparently bad for us for a second time). Physicians have fads and fashions the same as any other profession, and I wonder if there is not just as much half-baked research coming out of academic medicos as there is in other walks of science (a product of the "publish or die" phenomena that has corrupted our universities).
Secondly whenever I start to worry about general health warnings I think back to the Clapham rail disaster. All those bright young people who were doing the right thing, working hard, playing by the rules, looking forward to a good future and were wiped out by an accident. Worrying about units per week, exercise, salt intake, omega 3 good or bad and all the rest of it was of no help to them in the long run.
Furthermore, as one gets older naturally one sees ones friends and relatives start to fall off the perch in increasing numbers and in my experience there seems to be no strong correlation between the people who took the GMO's various advices seriously and those that just got doing what they fancied in a sensible sort of way. As my old GP explained it to me when I first became ill, "If you do everything we tell you then statistically you will live for an extra seven years. Of course, you could spend those seven years as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home and that assumes that you don't fall under a bus or pick up some virus we can't deal with".
So, it having passed 11 o'clock, I shall pour my morning whisky and get on with enjoying life.
Comments
https://gov.uk/government/publications/annual-road-fatalities
Interesting also is the dramatic no doubt GFC-related drop in road deaths in 2008 and the years following.
Ahem, we really don't have that much to talk about today, do we....
Laura K: "Do you want to make it live on my programme?"
SM: "No, that would be biased"
Mr. L, message received and understood
Good luck to her chatting with squaddies.
I have never played a computer game in my life (apart from Tetris for a bit on an Apple Mac).
I fear that would be the end of it were I to start.
And on that note....à bientôt...
It seems to me that almost every development in these sad tales has vindicated our Government's approach to the issue. Serious and increasing support for the camps in theatre encouraging people to stay there. Doing what we can to discourage those wanting to travel here. Making it clear that we will take manageable numbers but from those in need in theatre, not those who have travelled thereby avoiding the pull factor and ensuring those we take are in small groups, not the mobs seen in Germany. They get very little credit for this, indeed they have been consistently attacked by supposedly more moral people like Yvette Cooper but they have been right.
That said I was told by one of my pals in the business that asylum claims in the UK are currently running at record levels. I think they said about 160 a day.
It amazes me that the world can be so blase about an insidious legal drug like codeine yet come down like a tonne of bricks on a youngster recreationally taking an illegal party-drug once a month.
That said, I don't think it will be.
A soldier suing Defence Sec?
A vegan Agriculture Sec?
A unilateralist running their defence review with another that wants to exit NATO
A Trot as City Minister
A man who wants to overthrow capitalism as Chancellor
No sketch writer would attempt anything so ludicrous.
I would say the a period of silence from you about Scotland and flooding would be the wise course of action. I does seem that you were intent on making very silly political points out of other people's misery.
Is your daughter still as sympathetic as she was to such migrants as she was?
What is GFC and what do you think happened in 2008? I agree the percentage drop over that and the 2 succeeding years is remarkable.
Don't get hooked on it. It's very powerful stuff
If you think I was making political points of other people's misery, then surely the same thing can be said for Dair's original comments?
But neither of us were. Dair made some silly Scotland-is-best comments that Mother Nature rapidly disproved.
And yes, such paucity of news means I've had to resort to reading CiF where, interestingly also, it seems that a tide has been turned and an increasing proportion of btl Labour-supporting commentators are voicing robust, not to say coruscating criticism of Jezza. The responses of "Red Tory", meanwhile, are getting fewer.
If CiF is turning against him, surely Jezza's days are numbered...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/finland/12088332/Unprecedented-sex-harassment-in-Helsinki-at-New-Year-Finnish-police-report.html
Sweden for example has been having problems for years.
Way to go Merkel, way to go.
To undermine my leadership and the will of the party membership.
The Beeb must be pretty proud of that.
Haven't done that ever. Getting blitzed and unable to recall chunks of night before or Unidentified Drinking Injuries or Who's That?!? the morning after - golly. Been years
WingsOverSomerset has concluded that there is a dangerous surfeit of stupid in Bath, so he is exporting it via Twitter
He has published a list of the people he has blocked, and invites his acolytes to block the same list so their incestuous wank doesn't get polluted by facts or reason
There are some great names on the list
kevverage: Wings block list silences voices from: Guardian, BBC, Times, Sunday Herald, Scotsman, STV, Record, Mail & Express https://t.co/rQso7eE6ea
and I am happy to report that I too have made it onto the roll of honour, which is interesting because
1. I never followed Wings
2. therefore didn't know I had been blocked
3. Not sure how I came to his attention
It has however had one unfortunate consequence. The MP for Zoomer North and Runrig (AKA the stupidest MP at Westminster) has taken Rev Stu's advice and installed the "Na, na, I can't hear you" list so I am unable to rejoice in his witless outpourings any longer
A Nation mourns
Yes, slow news day
I think doctors sometimes get this muddled up. Good wine now and again makes life enjoyable. So does good food and being in the fresh air. And many other things.
But the joyless straining to lose weight, get fit etc to the exclusion of joy and a sensual pleasure in life is not for me, I'm afraid.
Have you seen his interview on the skynews web page where he is quite insulting to teachers, saying they only need to be one book ahead of their pupils, and at the same time being quote dismissive of the brightest in a class. He is really quite stupid. Just as Brown was always madder than people realised I think Corbyn is definitely genuinely more stupid than he is being given credit for.
While alcohol relaxes inhibitions in social situations, relaxafion of inhibitions to violence or verbal abuse is in parallel. It seems many of the Stuttgart troublemakers had been drinking. The combination of lower inhibitions and crowd behaviour is not a good one.
To try and draw a political link (!) - I'd never vote for a tee-totaller (good job I wouldn't have voted for Corbyn anyway huh?). I'd have made an exception for Dubya, because he drank enough before he was 30 to last anyone a lifetime.
We are not given the evidence on drinking, just an instruction, and we're supposed to take it on trust.
To make an informed judgement on whether to cut down on my drinking from say 28 to 21 units a week I need to know what effect the evidence shows that has on my life expectancy. Then I can make an informed tradeoff.
Alcohol allegedly increases the chances of dying of cancer and possibly heart disease. (I suspect there is real evidence for this). So drinking alcohol must DECREASE the chances of dying from some other causes including dementia as there is100% chance of my dying.
So if I cut my drinking from 28 to 21 units a week by how much does it INCREASE my chance of dying of dementia? As a punter, these are the sort of facts I need because I personally want to apply the tradeoff between enjoying alcohol and the consequences, and not rely on some professional who doesn't know my preferences.
NB Data that compares mortality of people drinking over 21 units a week with those drinking under 21 are of no use because the former includes people drinking over 100 units a week. It needs to be stratified to be of any use.
I am aware of the phenomemon of denial. I'm also aware of the phenomemon of confirmation bias in professionals attracted into this area. I'd just like some objective facts so I can decide for myself.
I remember reading more than 1 article which suggested that devout Hindus believed in karma or fate so much that taking steps like putting your lights on at night was a bit of a waste of time. If it was your time, it was your time and if it wasn't nothing could happen. Seemed unlikely to me but I have not been there.
Alternatively, it might be suggested that all of these intensely irritating traffic calming measures, bus lanes etc actually work. This is getting really depressing.
A glass of wine or a bottle of beer seems to act like a switch that allows my mind to relax and move on to less rigorous matters.
They should teach this in schools really. You can't start too young.
https://youtu.be/gl3_VPOAFBs
Though she would not be the first Labour lawyer-politician to turn a blind eye to legal requirements. (Cough *Baroness Scotland* cough).
From past to present, learn about the history of government here: https://t.co/wnShPWIsIa https://t.co/X9KBlAgkpZ
That's right Nick, the gentleman in Whitehall really does know best.
For the same reason, we should probably abolish elections as well.
Or you could go 14 units an hour and live to be 101. Here's the Queen Mother's daily drinkies https://t.co/zhFn2jfoFt
I went away for a couple of weeks and when I came back and tried one, I could barely eat it because it was so salty, which I hadn't noticed/had got used to when I was eating them regularly.
What daily limit would you put on Pret chicken caesar and bacon baguettes, eh, Sally?
If I felt that's what I'd done then I'd freely apologise. But I'm not going to, (or even give a stupid I'm-sorry-to-cause-offence apology) because I did not do anything wrong.
I agree wholeheartedly with what @DavidL wrote below. The only point I would take issue with him is this: it's not an issue of how we integrate these migrants. The first and most important question we should be asking ourselves is whether we should be inviting them into our countries at all, given the well-known problems there are in the states and communities from which they come. Integration of those limited few we do let in comes later.
For those complaining; we're going to be inundated with this kind of thing. Given the projected rise in healthcare costs, the state will be frantically thrashing around in a vain attempt to ensure that we'll all be fit and healthy old 'uns. Better than the Logan's Run scenario, I suppose.
Cameron and Corbyn will mark it very different ways, I suspect. The Somme is at the heart of a certain strand of British pacifism which Corbyn might tap into, but I expect he'll manage to strike the wrong note (going out on a limb here).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12088522/Emily-Thornberry-attended-Leigh-Day-Christmas-party-despite-allegations-the-firm-hounded-British-troops.html
Other 2016 anniversaries that Corbyn could well cock up include, in chronological order:
Liberation of Kuwait (25th)
Einstein's theory of relativity (100th)
Death of Shakespeare (400th)
England winning the World Cup (50th)
Terry Waite's homecoming (25th)
Attack on Pearl Harbor (75th)
Birth of Jesus Christ (2016th)
http://www.itnsource.com/fr/specials/anniversaries
JJ was gloating over Dair's discomfort at discovering that it turned out that Scotland was no better off than England.
Spot the difference.
Secondly whenever I start to worry about general health warnings I think back to the Clapham rail disaster. All those bright young people who were doing the right thing, working hard, playing by the rules, looking forward to a good future and were wiped out by an accident. Worrying about units per week, exercise, salt intake, omega 3 good or bad and all the rest of it was of no help to them in the long run.
Furthermore, as one gets older naturally one sees ones friends and relatives start to fall off the perch in increasing numbers and in my experience there seems to be no strong correlation between the people who took the GMO's various advices seriously and those that just got doing what they fancied in a sensible sort of way. As my old GP explained it to me when I first became ill, "If you do everything we tell you then statistically you will live for an extra seven years. Of course, you could spend those seven years as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home and that assumes that you don't fall under a bus or pick up some virus we can't deal with".
So, it having passed 11 o'clock, I shall pour my morning whisky and get on with enjoying life.