Let's be charitable. He might be having a depressive episode. God knows, I wrote some shitty things when I had that.
I'll also 'fess up to wondering if it was a beard who dunnit when the first reports came in. Not implausible in that region. But after Brevik etc I did know not to jump to conclusions based on early reports. Unlike Carlotta.
This awful man is responsible for some of the low opinion of MP's due to his bullying and spin whilst in No 10.
When the Chilcot report is published, he will be all over the media (especially the BBC) crowing that he has come through it unscathed.
Everytime we think "this is the worse it has ever been" the world gets a little bit more worse.
the world is probably the best it's ever been
I'd agree with that sentiment. One of the great mysteries of our age is that at a time when we are collectively healthier and wealthier than at any time in history, our overall outlook is so bleak, fearful and pessimistic.
As I wrote the other day, it's rough if you're charismatic megafauna or a rain forest or a coral reef. But as a human? These are the best of times.
We're not healthier. This is a myth. Chronic disease has massively grown in the past century.
Isnt that due to longer life expectancy ?
When you're popping your clogs aged 35 you dont get older peoples ailments
Of course it's not. Did you grow up with all the kids in your class having allergies, intolerances, asthma? Such comparatively young people getting cancer?
If I'll admit I was wrong and this is, in fact, the worst ever time to be alive, that things are going to get even worse in the future, can we stop this line of discussion?
If you regret spending any of your life watching it, come back to me and put me through watching the equivalent amount of some ghastly TED talk or something. But you won't.
Lucky, have you read the stuff suggesting the cholesterol has nothing to do with it, but it is inflammation within the vessels that is the real cause of heart disease.
Yes I have! Cholesterol does have something to do with it, but cholesterol is your body's repair mechanism - our arteries are made of cholesterol. So if you have weak or damaged arteries, you will have increased cholesterol. But blaming the cholesterol is like blaming firemen for always being around when there's a house-fire. As we often say here on PB 'Correlation doesn't equal causation'. So drug companies selling statins to lower cholesterol, are basically the equivalent of someone with a broken leg having their crutches kicked away.
Lucky, have you read the stuff suggesting the cholesterol has nothing to do with it, but it is inflammation within the vessels that is the real cause of heart disease.
You buy into contrarian thinking when it comes to medicine, but not economics?
It's not contrarian thinking; it's THINKING. That's the whole point.
Mr. City, sometimes national and local news can diverge massively. I remember national news not showing Leeds beating Manchester United (FA Cup, I think), saving it for Match of the Day. The goal was replayed three times during the Look North that immediately followed the national news and preceded MotD.
Very true Morris . Obviously this terrible event dominated look north for nearly all the bulletin. A previous conservative lady MP in the 80s and early 90s, for Batley and Spen was very moving, saying at times she had to request a police presence at her surgeries, but that was for arranged appointments.
Elizabeth Peacock I would guess.
It would have to be, she was the only Conservative MP for the seat.
Everytime we think "this is the worse it has ever been" the world gets a little bit more worse.
the world is probably the best it's ever been
I'd agree with that sentiment. One of the great mysteries of our age is that at a time when we are collectively healthier and wealthier than at any time in history, our overall outlook is so bleak, fearful and pessimistic.
As I wrote the other day, it's rough if you're charismatic megafauna or a rain forest or a coral reef. But as a human? These are the best of times.
We're not healthier. This is a myth. Chronic disease has massively grown in the past century.
And this serves as a good example of what I mean. Longevity up, infant mortality down, population up. I think most people have a basic goal of 'not dying'. The fact that people can live with chronic illnesses that would have killed them even a decade ago is testament to our progress.
UK life expectancy has risen by a decade in my lifetime. That's genuinely amazing.
No, the huge rise in the incidence of chronic disease - cancer, asthma, diabetes, heart disease is not testament to progress, it's testament to the shocking decline in the Western diet and other environmental factors. The fact we have new (usually expensive) chemical and surgical therapies to help us live with these conditions is an inevitable consequence of the march of time - we can't have less medicines can we? What we need to be doing is aiming at health, not just limping from sickness to sickness. For that, people need to be aware of the complexities of their bodies, and not subcontract responsibility for their health to the food industry, the NHS, and the pharmaceutical industry. Because as with politics, just because they have white coats and shiny offices, doesn't mean they know, or even want what's best for you. It's the 'experts' issue again.
Cancer is a disease of age. The massive rise in cancers is due entirely to the massive rise in life expectancy.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
Everytime we think "this is the worse it has ever been" the world gets a little bit more worse.
the world is probably the best it's ever been
I'd agree with that sentiment. One of the great mysteries of our age is that at a time when we are collectively healthier and wealthier than at any time in history, our overall outlook is so bleak, fearful and pessimistic.
As I wrote the other day, it's rough if you're charismatic megafauna or a rain forest or a coral reef. But as a human? These are the best of times.
We're not healthier. This is a myth. Chronic disease has massively grown in the past century.
Isnt that due to longer life expectancy ?
When you're popping your clogs aged 35 you dont get older peoples ailments
Of course it's not. Did you grow up with all the kids in your class having allergies, intolerances, asthma? Such comparatively young people getting cancer?
If I'll admit I was wrong and this is, in fact, the worst ever time to be alive, that things are going to get even worse in the future, can we stop this line of discussion?
If you regret spending any of your life watching it, come back to me and put me through watching the equivalent amount of some ghastly TED talk or something. But you won't.
Lucky, have you read the stuff suggesting the cholesterol has nothing to do with it, but it is inflammation within the vessels that is the real cause of heart disease.
Yes I have! Cholesterol does have something to do with it, but cholesterol is your body's repair mechanism - our arteries are made of cholesterol. So if you have weak or damaged arteries, you will have increased cholesterol. But blaming the cholesterol is like blaming firemen for always being around when there's a house-fire. As we often say here on PB 'Correlation doesn't equal causation'. So drug companies selling statins to lower cholesterol, are basically the equivalent of someone with a broken leg having their crutches kicked away.
Arteries are not made of cholesterol.
Cholesterol is a constituent part of all of our cells. If my comment was overly simplistic I apologise.
Let's be charitable. He might be having a depressive episode. God knows, I wrote some shitty things when I had that.
I'll also 'fess up to wondering if it was a beard who dunnit when the first reports came in. Not implausible in that region. But after Brevik etc I did know not to jump to conclusions based on early reports. Unlike Carlotta.
This awful man is responsible for some of the low opinion of MP's due to his bullying and spin whilst in No 10.
When the Chilcot report is published, he will be all over the media (especially the BBC) crowing that he has come through it unscathed.
Off topic. Are other Android users using the Google keyboard? I am and it is like going back to the worst days of Nokia predictive. I made a bunch of typos today but I have seen similar ones from other posters. Unless the AI catches up with me soon then I'm back to the Samsung default.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
Everytime we think "this is the worse it has ever been" the world gets a little bit more worse.
the world is probably the best it's ever been
I'd agree with that sentiment. One of the great mysteries of our age is that at a time when we are collectively healthier and wealthier than at any time in history, our overall outlook is so bleak, fearful and pessimistic.
As I wrote the other day, it's rough if you're charismatic megafauna or a rain forest or a coral reef. But as a human? These are the best of times.
We're not healthier. This is a myth. Chronic disease has massively grown in the past century.
And this serves as a good example of what I mean. Longevity up, infant mortality down, population up. I think most people have a basic goal of 'not dying'. The fact that people can live with chronic illnesses that would have killed them even a decade ago is testament to our progress.
UK life expectancy has risen by a decade in my lifetime. That's genuinely amazing.
No, the huge rise in the incidence of chronic disease - cancer, asthma, diabetes, heart disease is not testament to progress, it's testament to the shocking decline in the Western diet and other environmental factors. The fact we have new (usually expensive) chemical and surgical therapies to help us live with these conditions is an inevitable consequence of the march of time - we can't have less medicines can we? What we need to be doing is aiming at health, not just limping from sickness to sickness. For that, people need to be aware of the complexities of their bodies, and not subcontract responsibility for their health to the food industry, the NHS, and the pharmaceutical industry. Because as with politics, just because they have white coats and shiny offices, doesn't mean they know, or even want what's best for you. It's the 'experts' issue again.
Cancer is a disease of age. The massive rise in cancers is due entirely to the massive rise in life expectancy.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
Thank goodness. Without death, there is no evolution
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
Alistair's cheering me up...
The nature of Life is amazing. Revel in it for it is glorious and short.
Everytime we think "this is the worse it has ever been" the world gets a little bit more worse.
the world is probably the best it's ever been
I'd agree with that sentiment. One of the great mysteries of our age is that at a time when we are collectively healthier and wealthier than at any time in history, our overall outlook is so bleak, fearful and pessimistic.
As I wrote the other day, it's rough if you're charismatic megafauna or a rain forest or a coral reef. But as a human? These are the best of times.
We're not healthier. This is a myth. Chronic disease has massively grown in the past century.
And this serves as a good example of what I mean. Longevity up, infant mortality down, population up. I think most people have a basic goal of 'not dying'. The fact that people can live with chronic illnesses that would have killed them even a decade ago is testament to our progress.
UK life expectancy has risen by a decade in my lifetime. That's genuinely amazing.
No, the huge rise in the incidence of chronic disease - cancer, asthma, diabetes, heart disease is not testament to progress, it's testament to the shocking decline in the Western diet and other environmental factors. The fact we have new (usually expensive) chemical and surgical therapies to help us live with these conditions is an inevitable consequence of the march of time - we can't have less medicines can we? What we need to be doing is aiming at health, not just limping from sickness to sickness. For that, people need to be aware of the complexities of their bodies, and not subcontract responsibility for their health to the food industry, the NHS, and the pharmaceutical industry. Because as with politics, just because they have white coats and shiny offices, doesn't mean they know, or even want what's best for you. It's the 'experts' issue again.
Cancer is a disease of age. The massive rise in cancers is due entirely to the massive rise in life expectancy.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
Le Monde: Pro-European parliamentarian shot and killed Nouvel obs: Assassination of Jo Cox: death of rising anti-Brexit star Corriere della sera: Blood on the Brexit campaign: Death of Labour MP Spiegel: British Labour MP dies after attack El Pais: Shock after murder of British MP a week before referendum
Le Monde: Pro-European parliamentarian shot and killed Nouvel obs: Assassination of Jo Cox: death of rising anti-Brexit star Corriere della sera: Blood on the Brexit campaign: Death of Labour MP Spiegel: British Labour MP dies after attack El Pais: Shock after murder of British MP a week before referendum
Very sad news today.
What is also quite sad is people jumping to conclusions about why this happened.
On a serious note, and having read @NickPalmer's post upthread - is it now time to consider armed protection for MPs on such occasions? These incidents are still rare, thank God, but they appear to be becoming more frequent, especially in light of comments that another MP had another near miss recently.
It needn't be obtrusive but it seems it might be necessary if MPs are both to meet people openly and not be in danger of attack.
This is a genuine question. What do people think? I hate the idea - but I hate what's happened more.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
Alistair's cheering me up...
Valar morghulis.
On an unrelated note, someone posted earlier about strange bedfellows this campaign has created.
It's true that I've read more about the EU and more particularly, the British views on the EU, both for and against, from left and right and I do feel more educated and informed as a result.
We also been exposed to new political players that perhaps some of us hadn't come across before - Andrea Leadsom and Gisela Stuart in particular.
My question to you all is do you think this referendum has made you more politically engaged? Or is it simply another betting opportunity? Could you consider voting for a different party now?
Cancer is a disease of age. The massive rise in cancers is due entirely to the massive rise in life expectancy.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
I'd like to see some evidence for your cancer/oxygen claim.
For democracy now to flourish and in acknowledgement that Jo Cox was elected for a full term i sincerely hope that all the other parties will not put candidates up at the byelection that will now sadly take place. That would be a fitting cross party response.
So you think the people who live in the constituency should not be represented for a few years.
BBC says another eyewitness has come forward to report the attacker shouted "put Britain first".
The chance of an eyewitness accurately recalling exactly what was said are slim to none. Unless there is a recording we will never know. Even the offender is unlikely to remember exactly what he said.
For democracy now to flourish and in acknowledgement that Jo Cox was elected for a full term i sincerely hope that all the other parties will not put candidates up at the byelection that will now sadly take place. That would be a fitting cross party response.
So you think the people who live in the constituency should not be represented for a few years.
BBC says another eyewitness has come forward to report the attacker shouted "put Britain first".
The chance of an eyewitness accurately recalling exactly what was said are slim to none. Unless there is a recording we will never know. Even the offender is unlikely to remember exactly what he said.
There was this other person wasn't there? An elderly man who was injured?
Le Monde: Pro-European parliamentarian shot and killed Nouvel obs: Assassination of Jo Cox: death of rising anti-Brexit star Corriere della sera: Blood on the Brexit campaign: Death of Labour MP Spiegel: British Labour MP dies after attack El Pais: Shock after murder of British MP a week before referendum
Very sad news today.
What is also quite sad is people jumping to conclusions about why this happened.
Not even important today, and really, really not sad at all in comparison.
For democracy now to flourish and in acknowledgement that Jo Cox was elected for a full term i sincerely hope that all the other parties will not put candidates up at the byelection that will now sadly take place. That would be a fitting cross party response.
So you think the people who live in the constituency should not be represented for a few years.
How odd.
I think the point was a Labour member should be returned unopposed. I don't necessarily agree with it - we don't technically vote for parties and Cox seems to have had a personal vote that may not want to vote just for any candidate - but there is a certain logic to it.
Everytime we think "this is the worse it has ever been" the world gets a little bit more worse.
the world is probably the best it's ever been
I'd agree with that sentiment. One of the great mysteries of our age is that at a time when we are collectively healthier and wealthier than at any time in history, our overall outlook is so bleak, fearful and pessimistic.
As I wrote the other day, it's rough if you're charismatic megafauna or a rain forest or a coral reef. But as a human? These are the best of times.
We're not healthier. This is a myth. Chronic disease has massively grown in the past century.
Isnt that due to longer life expectancy ?
When you're popping your clogs aged 35 you dont get older peoples ailments
Of course it's not. Did you grow up with all the kids in your class having allergies, intolerances, asthma? Such comparatively young people getting cancer?
If I'll admit I was wrong and this is, in fact, the worst ever time to be alive, that things are going to get even worse in the future, can we stop this line of discussion?
If you regret spending any of your life watching it, come back to me and put me through watching the equivalent amount of some ghastly TED talk or something. But you won't.
Lucky, have you read the stuff suggesting the cholesterol has nothing to do with it, but it is inflammation within the vessels that is the real cause of heart disease.
Yes I have! Cholesterol does have something to do with it, but cholesterol is your body's repair mechanism - our arteries are made of cholesterol. So if you have weak or damaged arteries, you will have increased cholesterol. But blaming the cholesterol is like blaming firemen for always being around when there's a house-fire. As we often say here on PB 'Correlation doesn't equal causation'. So drug companies selling statins to lower cholesterol, are basically the equivalent of someone with a broken leg having their crutches kicked away.
Arteries are not made of cholesterol.
Cholesterol is a constituent part of all of our cells. If my comment was overly simplistic I apologise.
Tim Montgomerie: Right call by @Spectator to pull @AlexMassie piece. There should be freedom to politicise tragic events but at least establish facts first.
Everytime we think "this is the worse it has ever been" the world gets a little bit more worse.
the world is probably the best it's ever been
I'd agree with that sentiment. One of the great mysteries of our age is that at a time when we are collectively healthier and wealthier than at any time in history, our overall outlook is so bleak, fearful and pessimistic.
As I wrote the other day, it's rough if you're charismatic megafauna or a rain forest or a coral reef. But as a human? These are the best of times.
We're not healthier. This is a myth. Chronic disease has massively grown in the past century.
Isnt that due to longer life expectancy ?
When you're popping your clogs aged 35 you dont get older peoples ailments
Of course it's not. Did you grow up with all the kids in your class having allergies, intolerances, asthma? Such comparatively young people getting cancer?
If I'll admit I was wrong and this is, in fact, the worst ever time to be alive, that things are going to get even worse in the future, can we stop this line of discussion?
If you regret spending any of your life watching it, come back to me and put me through watching the equivalent amount of some ghastly TED talk or something. But you won't.
It's two hours long! I shall put it on my watchlist for my next bout of insomnia .
It will definitely help with the insomnia.
I can't help it if people don't have the attention span to watch a cogently and eloquently argued lecture on a vitally important topic.
Fucking pave over west London and turn it into an airport. I don't care if my flat gets demolished.
If it means an end to being assaulted with pro-Heathrow propaganda every time you pass through the airport I'm all for it, but still prefer the ambition of Boris Island.
Lucky, have you read the stuff suggesting the cholesterol has nothing to do with it, but it is inflammation within the vessels that is the real cause of heart disease.
You buy into contrarian thinking when it comes to medicine, but not economics?
Hardly contrarian - the ship is turning on statins, but like an oil tanker, it is taking a long while.
The fact is that drug companies always show the statistic that most supports their case (usually relative percentages, rather than absolute numbers, and never number needed to treat). Let's take an example:
Breast cancer screening:
1. Relative risk reduction for screened women over unscreened women over a 10 year horizon = 25%. Sounds good, right? 2. Absolute risk reduction is that one extra women in 1000 is saved from cancer. Not quite so attractive. 3. Number needed to treat - 1000 women need to be treated to save one life. I.e. 1000 people have to suffer inconvenience and anxiety for ten years to save one life. Sounds authoritarian 4. Increase in life expectancy. Women who participate in screening from age 50 to 69 increase their life expectancy by 12 days. Does that seem worth the candle?
I would provide references, but what's the point? You won't read them and claim that I am resorting to argument by authority. But that is the evidence based on real world statistics.
On a serious note, and having read @NickPalmer's post upthread - is it now time to consider armed protection for MPs on such occasions? These incidents are still rare, thank God, but they appear to be becoming more frequent, especially in light of comments that another MP had another near miss recently.
It needn't be obtrusive but it seems it might be necessary if MPs are both to meet people openly and not be in danger of attack.
This is a genuine question. What do people think? I hate the idea - but I hate what's happened more.
Still thankfully rare. If this is a nutter, it's the first time since 1812. If political, the first time since 1990 (and even if any 'political' link is found, it's already clear it will be of secondary importance to mental issues)
We don't routinely arm the Police. Most of them are against it, even though they know some will pay with their lives to protect us.
What happened today is an incredible sad, but still - thankfully - incredibly rare incident.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
Alistair's cheering me up...
Valar morghulis.
On an unrelated note, someone posted earlier about strange bedfellows this campaign has created.
It's true that I've read more about the EU and more particularly, the British views on the EU, both for and against, from left and right and I do feel more educated and informed as a result.
We also been exposed to new political players that perhaps some of us hadn't come across before - Andrea Leadsom and Gisela Stuart in particular.
My question to you all is do you think this referendum has made you more politically engaged? Or is it simply another betting opportunity? Could you consider voting for a different party now?
Yes. It's made me rethink some of my fundamental political beliefs, and challenge myself in a way I'd never been challenged before. I've also learnt a lot and changed my mind about a few things as well.
On a serious note, and having read @NickPalmer's post upthread - is it now time to consider armed protection for MPs on such occasions? These incidents are still rare, thank God, but they appear to be becoming more frequent, especially in light of comments that another MP had another near miss recently.
It needn't be obtrusive but it seems it might be necessary if MPs are both to meet people openly and not be in danger of attack.
This is a genuine question. What do people think? I hate the idea - but I hate what's happened more.
A small presence would not be out of the realms of reason, on the face of it, although I can foresee a couple of predictable problems that would probably arise in time - arguments over resourcing it, given how often MPs meet constituents, not just at surgeries, and also criticism of them being even more elite and aloof that they cannot meet with the public without guards, although hopefully both would be minority opinions.
Even so, it is still very very rare, and is it a significant step to make such a change to how these things are done.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
Alistair's cheering me up...
My question to you all is do you think this referendum has made you more politically engaged? Or is it simply another betting opportunity? Could you consider voting for a different party now?
Valar dohaeris
I have no idea who I could possibly vote for anymore. The Tories are about to be a confused, contradictory mess, likely ditching the things I like for things I do not, Corbynite Labour are simply unpalatable, the LDs nationally appear to be being doing nothing, and as a economically rightish socially leftish leaning centrist I doubt they want my vote anyway, UKIP generally seem to be correct on only one issue, the EU, and there is no one else.
I decided at the last minute in 2015 to vote LD partly out of habit, partly out of sympathy and partly on the basis they'd worked harder for my vote (by actually working for it, unlike the other parties, it being a safe Tory seat). It being such a safe seat makes my vote pointless anyway, but I feel it a duty to vote, so god only knows which way I'll end up going in the General Election we might well get this year.
For democracy now to flourish and in acknowledgement that Jo Cox was elected for a full term i sincerely hope that all the other parties will not put candidates up at the byelection that will now sadly take place. That would be a fitting cross party response.
So you think the people who live in the constituency should not be represented for a few years.
How odd.
I think the point was a Labour member should be returned unopposed. I don't necessarily agree with it - we don't technically vote for parties and Cox seems to have had a personal vote that may not want to vote just for any candidate - but there is a certain logic to it.
There is a precedent though. When Ian Gow and Anthony Berry died at the hands of the IRA, the other parties stood in the by-elections and in Eastbourne the LDs won.
I expect the parties will stand but run a shadow campaign.
Fucking pave over west London and turn it into an airport. I don't care if my flat gets demolished.
If it means an end to being assaulted with pro-Heathrow propaganda every time you pass through the airport I'm all for it, but still prefer the ambition of Boris Island.
Boris island is almost completely bonkers... Apart from the fact that the alternative is half arsed attempts at minor expansions of airports.
From that point of view a 4 runway hub airport would be a great idea.
Cancer is a disease of age. The massive rise in cancers is due entirely to the massive rise in life expectancy.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
I'd like to see some evidence for your cancer/oxygen claim.
As altitude of living location increase lung cancer rates decrease.
Amazingly enough oxygen is a key component of oxidantion damage of cells. The body is built to prevent it but can only do so much against the constant bombardment it takes.
On a serious note, and having read @NickPalmer's post upthread - is it now time to consider armed protection for MPs on such occasions? These incidents are still rare, thank God, but they appear to be becoming more frequent, especially in light of comments that another MP had another near miss recently.
It needn't be obtrusive but it seems it might be necessary if MPs are both to meet people openly and not be in danger of attack.
This is a genuine question. What do people think? I hate the idea - but I hate what's happened more.
Even so, it is still very very rare, and is it a significant step to make such a change to how these things are done.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
Alistair's cheering me up...
My question to you all is do you think this referendum has made you more politically engaged? Or is it simply another betting opportunity? Could you consider voting for a different party now?
Valar dohaeris
I have no idea who I could possibly vote for anymore. The Tories are about to be a confused, contradictory mess, likely ditching the things I like for things I do not, Corbynite Labour are simply unpalatable, the LDs nationally appear to be being doing nothing, and as a economically rightish socially leftish leaning centrist I doubt they want my vote anyway, UKIP generally seem to be correct on only one issue, the EU, and there is no one else.
I decided at the last minute in 2015 to vote LD partly out of habit, partly out of sympathy and partly on the basis they'd worked harder for my vote (by actually working for it, unlike the other parties, it being a safe Tory seat). It being such a safe seat makes my vote pointless anyway, but I feel it a duty to vote, so god only knows which way I'll end up going in the General Election we might well get this year.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I find myself in a similar position. I'm fiscally dry, socially dripping wet. There appears to be no natural home for my vote, which, on reflection seems fantastical - it's the only sensible political position, surely .
Tim Montgomerie: Right call by @Spectator to pull @AlexMassie piece. There should be freedom to politicise tragic events but at least establish facts first.
On a serious note, and having read @NickPalmer's post upthread - is it now time to consider armed protection for MPs on such occasions? These incidents are still rare, thank God, but they appear to be becoming more frequent, especially in light of comments that another MP had another near miss recently.
It needn't be obtrusive but it seems it might be necessary if MPs are both to meet people openly and not be in danger of attack.
This is a genuine question. What do people think? I hate the idea - but I hate what's happened more.
Still thankfully rare. If this is a nutter, it's the first time since 1812.
I hate to be pernickety at a time like this, but that's not quite true - Lord Mayo springs to mind. Moreover, I was thinking less in terms of death than in terms of injuries- Timms and Lloyd both spring to mind, and somebody else was killed trying to protect Lloyd.
Tim Montgomerie: Right call by @Spectator to pull @AlexMassie piece. There should be freedom to politicise tragic events but at least establish facts first.
Why am I still able to see it?
The Internet is only eventually consistent. Could still be held in your browser cache, CDN cache, or it could just be ghosts in the machine.
Tim Montgomerie: Right call by @Spectator to pull @AlexMassie piece. There should be freedom to politicise tragic events but at least establish facts first.
One of these days someone is going to get a daft politician/civil servant to try to ban it...
Someone went to a lot of effort on that little joke. Well done, though.
In 2007, when we had those floods that shut the Mythe treatment works and left Gloucester without water for a few days, a Labour MP - I forget whom - said in Parliament that it was too risky to put a water treatment works near water where it might get flooded.
The rather sad part was that he couldn't understand why his serious and well-intentioned point caused everyone to burst out laughing.
Tragic news about Jo Cox and shows not even our gun laws are infallible. As for the referendum it will inevitably stop the Leave momentum dead, not that that should be a major consideration today and with a week to go until polling day campaigning will halt until at least the weekend
On a serious note, and having read @NickPalmer's post upthread - is it now time to consider armed protection for MPs on such occasions? These incidents are still rare, thank God, but they appear to be becoming more frequent, especially in light of comments that another MP had another near miss recently.
It needn't be obtrusive but it seems it might be necessary if MPs are both to meet people openly and not be in danger of attack.
This is a genuine question. What do people think? I hate the idea - but I hate what's happened more.
Even so, it is still very very rare, and is it a significant step to make such a change to how these things are done.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
Alistair's cheering me up...
My question to you all is do you think this referendum has made you more politically engaged? Or is it simply another betting opportunity? Could you consider voting for a different party now?
Valar dohaeris
I have no idea who I could possibly vote for anymore. The Tories are about to be a confused, contradictory mess, likely ditching the things I like for things I do not, Corbynite Labour are simply unpalatable, the LDs nationally appear to be being doing nothing, and as a economically rightish socially leftish leaning centrist I doubt they want my vote anyway, UKIP generally seem to be correct on only one issue, the EU, and there is no one else.
I decided at the last minute in 2015 to vote LD partly out of habit, partly out of sympathy and partly on the basis they'd worked harder for my vote (by actually working for it, unlike the other parties, it being a safe Tory seat). It being such a safe seat makes my vote pointless anyway, but I feel it a duty to vote, so god only knows which way I'll end up going in the General Election we might well get this year.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I find myself in a similar position. I'm fiscally dry, socially dripping wet. There appears to be no natural home for my vote, which, on reflection seems fantastical - it's the only sensible political position, surely .
You mean you - like me, and every other sensible person in the world - are a classical liberal.
Everytime we think "this is the worse it has ever been" the world gets a little bit more worse.
the world is probably the best it's ever been
I'd agree with that sentiment. One of the great mysteries of our age is that at a time when we are collectively healthier and wealthier than at any time in history, our overall outlook is so bleak, fearful and pessimistic.
As I wrote the other day, it's rough if you're charismatic megafauna or a rain forest or a coral reef. But as a human? These are the best of times.
We're not healthier. This is a myth. Chronic disease has massively grown in the past century.
Isnt that due to longer life expectancy ?
When you're popping your clogs aged 35 you dont get older peoples ailments
Of course it's not. Did you grow up with all the kids in your class having allergies, intolerances, asthma? Such comparatively young people getting cancer?
Well, yes. Didn't you? I'm in my mid-forties and some of the kids in my class had asthma. One had coeliac disease. Others had allergies. My Chemistry teacher, who was comparatively young, died of leukemia. So... what's your point?
On a serious note, and having read @NickPalmer's post upthread - is it now time to consider armed protection for MPs on such occasions? These incidents are still rare, thank God, but they appear to be becoming more frequent, especially in light of comments that another MP had another near miss recently.
It needn't be obtrusive but it seems it might be necessary if MPs are both to meet people openly and not be in danger of attack.
This is a genuine question. What do people think? I hate the idea - but I hate what's happened more.
Even so, it is still very very rare, and is it a significant step to make such a change to how these things are done.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
Alistair's cheering me up...
My question to you all is do you think this referendum has made you more politically engaged? Or is it simply another betting opportunity? Could you consider voting for a different party now?
Valar dohaeris
I have no idea who I could possibly vote for anymore. The Tories are about to be a confused, contradictory mess, likely ditching the things I like for things I do not, Corbynite Labour are simply unpalatable, the LDs nationally appear to be being doing nothing, and as a economically rightish socially leftish leaning centrist I doubt they want my vote anyway, UKIP generally seem to be correct on only one issue, the EU, and there is no one else.
I decided at the last minute in 2015 to vote LD partly out of habit, partly out of sympathy and partly on the basis they'd worked harder for my vote (by actually working for it, unlike the other parties, it being a safe Tory seat). It being such a safe seat makes my vote pointless anyway, but I feel it a duty to vote, so god only knows which way I'll end up going in the General Election we might well get this year.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I find myself in a similar position. I'm fiscally dry, socially dripping wet. There appears to be no natural home for my vote, which, on reflection seems fantastical - it's the only sensible political position, surely .
Small government libertarian, hence socially government to stay the f**k out of people's private lives. No home either. Particularly not in the US
Tim Montgomerie: Right call by @Spectator to pull @AlexMassie piece. There should be freedom to politicise tragic events but at least establish facts first.
Why am I still able to see it?
Your browser will have cached it.
Ah, I couldn't get it when incognito. I've taken a copy, it will be interesting to see if it's republished as facts are established.
On a serious note, and having read @NickPalmer's post upthread - is it now time to consider armed protection for MPs on such occasions? These incidents are still rare, thank God, but they appear to be becoming more frequent, especially in light of comments that another MP had another near miss recently.
It needn't be obtrusive but it seems it might be necessary if MPs are both to meet people openly and not be in danger of attack.
This is a genuine question. What do people think? I hate the idea - but I hate what's happened more.
Even so, it is still very very rare, and is it a significant step to make such a change to how these things are done.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
Alistair's cheering me up...
My question to you all is do you think this referendum has made you more politically engaged? Or is it simply another betting opportunity? Could you consider voting for a different party now?
Valar dohaeris
I have no idea who I could possibly vote for anymore. The Tories are about to be a confused, contradictory mess, likely ditching the things I like for things I do not, Corbynite Labour are simply unpalatable, the LDs nationally appear to be being doing nothing, and as a economically rightish socially leftish leaning centrist I doubt they want my vote anyway, UKIP generally seem to be correct on only one issue, the EU, and there is no one else.
I decided at the last minute in 2015 to vote LD partly out of habit, partly out of sympathy and partly on the basis they'd worked harder for my vote (by actually working for it, unlike the other parties, it being a safe Tory seat). It being such a safe seat makes my vote pointless anyway, but I feel it a duty to vote, so god only knows which way I'll end up going in the General Election we might well get this year.
That's just it for me: THEY had to work hard to win YOUR vote.
That's what this referendum is about for me. We are being asked to vote Remain out of fear from the powers-that-be that, if we don't do as they say, we will face "consequences" as "deserters" or made an example of to deter others.
But I want the powers-that-be to be scared of *us*. Only then do we have true liberty and control.
One of these days someone is going to get a daft politician/civil servant to try to ban it...
Someone went to a lot of effort on that little joke. Well done, though.
In 2007, when we had those floods that shut the Mythe treatment works and left Gloucester without water for a few days, a Labour MP - I forget whom - said in Parliament that it was too risky to put a water treatment works near water where it might get flooded.
The rather sad part was that he couldn't understand why his serious and well-intentioned point caused everyone to burst out laughing.
LOL. To his defence, we all get blind spots, particularly when we are being earnest.
Small government libertarian, hence socially government to stay the f**k out of people's private lives. No home either. Particularly not in the US
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
First hand accounts by witnesses at tragic events can be very unreliable as I know. My daughter was hit from behind by a vehicle whilst walking on the pavement. Many witnesses at the scene said she was in the road. It was proved by other evidence that this was not the case. The mind set told them what they saw, as they believe that the pedestrian must have been on the road.
On a serious note, and having read @NickPalmer's post upthread - is it now time to consider armed protection for MPs on such occasions? These incidents are still rare, thank God, but they appear to be becoming more frequent, especially in light of comments that another MP had another near miss recently.
It needn't be obtrusive but it seems it might be necessary if MPs are both to meet people openly and not be in danger of attack.
This is a genuine question. What do people think? I hate the idea - but I hate what's happened more.
Still thankfully rare. If this is a nutter, it's the first time since 1812.
I hate to be pernickety at a time like this, but that's not quite true - Lord Mayo springs to mind. Moreover, I was thinking less in terms of death than in terms of injuries- Timms and Lloyd both spring to mind, and somebody else was killed trying to protect Lloyd.
Well if you want to be pernickety, Mayo was not a member of the People's House at the time of his death... in 1872. So who cares, really?
Yes, but the two examples you give are still rare, and there may be previous obscure cases which don't permit us to reject the hypothesis:-
It's very rare, and grief should not induce us to over-react.
First hand accounts by witnesses at tragic events can be very unreliable as I know. My daughter was hit from behind by a vehicle whilst walking on the pavement. Many witnesses at the scene said she was in the road. It was proved by other evidence that this was not the case. The mind set told them what they saw, as they believe that the pedestrian must have been on the road.
I was run over by a bus while on the pavement.
(Specifically, the wing mirror hit me at about 30mph. I had an amazing shaped bruise.)
Tim Montgomerie: Right call by @Spectator to pull @AlexMassie piece. There should be freedom to politicise tragic events but at least establish facts first.
Why am I still able to see it?
The link being shared on twitter doesn't work for me, but there's still a link on the homepage.
First hand accounts by witnesses at tragic events can be very unreliable as I know. My daughter was hit from behind by a vehicle whilst walking on the pavement. Many witnesses at the scene said she was in the road. It was proved by other evidence that this was not the case. The mind set told them what they saw, as they believe that the pedestrian must have been on the road.
I recall being told that things like war movies can have an effect on the recollections of people who were actually there in a similar way.
Tragic news about Jo Cox and shows not even our gun laws are infallible. As for the referendum it will inevitably stop the Leave momentum dead, not that that should be a major consideration today and with a week to go until polling day campaigning will halt until at least the weekend
Might have helped them a bit by killing the coverage of the Farage advert this morning - felt like it could have gone too far. On the other hand it could give Remain an opportunity to recalibrate their campaign a bit and soften it slightly.
Everytime we think "this is the worse it has ever been" the world gets a little bit more worse.
the world is probably the best it's ever been
I'd agree with that sentiment. One of the great mysteries of our age is that at a time when we are collectively healthier and wealthier than at any time in history, our overall outlook is so bleak, fearful and pessimistic.
As I wrote the other day, it's rough if you're charismatic megafauna or a rain forest or a coral reef. But as a human? These are the best of times.
We're not healthier. This is a myth. Chronic disease has massively grown in the past century.
Isnt that due to longer life expectancy ?
When you're popping your clogs aged 35 you dont get older peoples ailments
Of course it's not. Did you grow up with all the kids in your class having allergies, intolerances, asthma? Such comparatively young people getting cancer?
If I'll admit I was wrong and this is, in fact, the worst ever time to be alive, that things are going to get even worse in the future, can we stop this line of discussion?
If you regret spending any of your life watching it, come back to me and put me through watching the equivalent amount of some ghastly TED talk or something. But you won't.
It's two hours long! I shall put it on my watchlist for my next bout of insomnia .
It will definitely help with the insomnia.
I can't help it if people don't have the attention span to watch a cogently and eloquently argued lecture on a vitally important topic.
I did hold out an olive branch but I now return to my original view that you are a complete crank.
And don't forget the trans fats. They have been used for a generation or two (I was raised on them) and are diabolical. Why have they been used in food? Processed food made with it keeps longer because the bugs won't touch it. Trans fats are belatedly on the way out. The way around such things is to cook one's own food with basic unprocessed ingredients.
One of these days someone is going to get a daft politician/civil servant to try to ban it...
Someone went to a lot of effort on that little joke. Well done, though.
In 2007, when we had those floods that shut the Mythe treatment works and left Gloucester without water for a few days, a Labour MP - I forget whom - said in Parliament that it was too risky to put a water treatment works near water where it might get flooded.
The rather sad part was that he couldn't understand why his serious and well-intentioned point caused everyone to burst out laughing.
On other matters, is Lord Coe screwed? I imagine you don't rise high in things like the IAAF or Fifa without working with or for plenty of corrupt people even if you personally are determined not to be so, but if people keep bringing that up you cannot really defend yourself except with the Sepp Blatter 'I knew nothing, I'm entirely incompetent, please re-elect me' defence.
The problem with these organisations is they try to pin the problems on a few bad apples, even when it is the most prominent figures, when the truth is there is a problem with the orchard.
if people keep bringing that up you cannot really defend yourself except with the Sepp Blatter 'I knew nothing, I'm entirely incompetent, please re-elect me' defence.
May I nominate that for Freudian autocorrect of the 21st century so far?
Tim Montgomerie: Right call by @Spectator to pull @AlexMassie piece. There should be freedom to politicise tragic events but at least establish facts first.
Why am I still able to see it?
The link being shared on twitter doesn't work for me, but there's still a link on the homepage.
First hand accounts by witnesses at tragic events can be very unreliable as I know. My daughter was hit from behind by a vehicle whilst walking on the pavement. Many witnesses at the scene said she was in the road. It was proved by other evidence that this was not the case. The mind set told them what they saw, as they believe that the pedestrian must have been on the road.
I recall being told that things like war movies can have an effect on the recollections of people who were actually there in a similar way.
If you ever read any Peter Watts, you'll come away with an incredibly low opinion of just about everything about human cognition. Our brains are masters of self-deception, filling-in-the-blanks and post-facto rationalisation.
One of my favourite quotes about his work goes:
"Whenever I find my will to live becoming too strong, I read Peter Watts."
The things that can go wrong with the way we process sensory information are myriad. Check out the Cotard Delusion. The patient believes they are dead.
This is also interesting, if only to show how plastic and awesome (in the old-fashioned sense of the word) our brains are:
On this Massie piece, I haven't yet read it, although my instinct is people should be allowed to politicise things soon after tragedies, as even though you get a lot of worthless and offensive rubbish that way, you can have things politicised by people trying to prevent discussion by claiming not to want to politicise events, and so the protection of some worthy comments will by necessity also involve the protection of opprobrious material.
Which is not to say someone should not face criticism or consequences as as result, and a publication has the right to decide it does not want to touch it with a bargepole.
For democracy now to flourish and in acknowledgement that Jo Cox was elected for a full term i sincerely hope that all the other parties will not put candidates up at the byelection that will now sadly take place. That would be a fitting cross party response.
So you think the people who live in the constituency should not be represented for a few years.
How odd.
I think the point was a Labour member should be returned unopposed. I don't necessarily agree with it - we don't technically vote for parties and Cox seems to have had a personal vote that may not want to vote just for any candidate - but there is a certain logic to it.
I don't agree with the proposal at all. Tough as it may sound, it smacks of a ridiculous sentimentality. The proper course is after a decent period of time to have an election in the normal way.
Tim Montgomerie: Right call by @Spectator to pull @AlexMassie piece. There should be freedom to politicise tragic events but at least establish facts first.
Why am I still able to see it?
Why did Tim Montgomerie want it pulled? I appreciate he disagrees with the piece but is that a reason for pulling it? I thought the Spectator's stance was against that.
Tim Montgomerie: Right call by @Spectator to pull @AlexMassie piece. There should be freedom to politicise tragic events but at least establish facts first.
Why am I still able to see it?
Your browser will have cached it.
It looks like (an edited version of) it is back online at the original link.
On other matters, is Lord Coe screwed? I imagine you don't rise high in things like the IAAF or Fifa without working with or for plenty of corrupt people even if you personally are determined not to be so, but if people keep bringing that up you cannot really defend yourself except with the Sepp Blatter 'I knew nothing, I'm entirely incompetent, please re-elect me' defence.
The problem with these organisations is they try to pin the problems on a few bad apples, even when it is the most prominent figures, when the truth is there is a problem with the orchard.
Perhaps he got a leg up from a crook, but how are you supposed to clean up unless you get some power to do so?
For democracy now to flourish and in acknowledgement that Jo Cox was elected for a full term i sincerely hope that all the other parties will not put candidates up at the byelection that will now sadly take place. That would be a fitting cross party response.
So you think the people who live in the constituency should not be represented for a few years.
How odd.
I think the point was a Labour member should be returned unopposed. I don't necessarily agree with it - we don't technically vote for parties and Cox seems to have had a personal vote that may not want to vote just for any candidate - but there is a certain logic to it.
I don't agree with the proposal at all. Tough as it may sound, it smacks of a ridiculous sentimentality. The proper course is after a decent period of time to have an election in the normal way.
My other concern if we don't have a normal by-election is that it implies, entirely accidentally, that assassination is more important than democratic processes and the latter should be suspended in the event of the former. Which is certainly not the impression we should be giving.
if people keep bringing that up you cannot really defend yourself except with the Sepp Blatter 'I knew nothing, I'm entirely incompetent, please re-elect me' defence.
May I nominate that for Freudian autocorrect of the 21st century so far?
I'm afraid not, as it was intentional. He said that he was not complicit but that it was that he and Fifa could not keep an eye on everyone, meaning the corrupt, all of the time. Ergo, he was admitting he was incapable of doing his job, but that he should remain President regardless.
Tim Montgomerie: Right call by @Spectator to pull @AlexMassie piece. There should be freedom to politicise tragic events but at least establish facts first.
Why am I still able to see it?
Why did Tim Montgomerie want it pulled? I appreciate he disagrees with the piece but is that a reason for pulling it? I thought the Spectator's stance was against that.
Looking at his quote as someone included below he was saying facts should be established first, so it was not the content or tone that meant it should be pulled, even if he disagreed with it, but its facts.
In light of today's events, BMG are delaying their polls by 24 hours. So they will now be released at 1am Saturday.
All polling is irrelevant now until the weekend, while it does seem a bit inappropriate to look at the political consequences of today's news nonetheless while at lunchtime it was literally neck and neck, if not Leave with the narrow advantage, it is now difficult to see past a narrow Remain win but we shall see. The shooter shouting 'Britain First', allegedly, will be all over the news today and tomorrow
For democracy now to flourish and in acknowledgement that Jo Cox was elected for a full term i sincerely hope that all the other parties will not put candidates up at the byelection that will now sadly take place. That would be a fitting cross party response.
So you think the people who live in the constituency should not be represented for a few years.
How odd.
I think the point was a Labour member should be returned unopposed. I don't necessarily agree with it - we don't technically vote for parties and Cox seems to have had a personal vote that may not want to vote just for any candidate - but there is a certain logic to it.
I don't agree with the proposal at all. Tough as it may sound, it smacks of a ridiculous sentimentality. The proper course is after a decent period of time to have an election in the normal way.
My other concern if we don't have a normal by-election is that it implies, entirely accidentally, that assassination is more important than democratic processes and the latter should be suspended in the event of the former. Which is certainly not the impression we should be giving.
For democracy now to flourish and in acknowledgement that Jo Cox was elected for a full term i sincerely hope that all the other parties will not put candidates up at the byelection that will now sadly take place. That would be a fitting cross party response.
So you think the people who live in the constituency should not be represented for a few years.
How odd.
I think the point was a Labour member should be returned unopposed. I don't necessarily agree with it - we don't technically vote for parties and Cox seems to have had a personal vote that may not want to vote just for any candidate - but there is a certain logic to it.
I don't agree with the proposal at all. Tough as it may sound, it smacks of a ridiculous sentimentality. The proper course is after a decent period of time to have an election in the normal way.
On other matters, is Lord Coe screwed? I imagine you don't rise high in things like the IAAF or Fifa without working with or for plenty of corrupt people even if you personally are determined not to be so, but if people keep bringing that up you cannot really defend yourself except with the Sepp Blatter 'I knew nothing, I'm entirely incompetent, please re-elect me' defence.
The problem with these organisations is they try to pin the problems on a few bad apples, even when it is the most prominent figures, when the truth is there is a problem with the orchard.
Perhaps he got a leg up from a crook, but how are you supposed to clean up unless you get some power to do so?
A defence with some merit, especially if he did not do anything shady himself, although sadly also a defence used by crooks.
For democracy now to flourish and in acknowledgement that Jo Cox was elected for a full term i sincerely hope that all the other parties will not put candidates up at the byelection that will now sadly take place. That would be a fitting cross party response.
So you think the people who live in the constituency should not be represented for a few years.
How odd.
I think the point was a Labour member should be returned unopposed. I don't necessarily agree with it - we don't technically vote for parties and Cox seems to have had a personal vote that may not want to vote just for any candidate - but there is a certain logic to it.
I don't agree with the proposal at all. Tough as it may sound, it smacks of a ridiculous sentimentality. The proper course is after a decent period of time to have an election in the normal way.
My other concern if we don't have a normal by-election is that it implies, entirely accidentally, that assassination is more important than democratic processes and the latter should be suspended in the event of the former. Which is certainly not the impression we should be giving.
My view is that we should follow exactly the same processes that we always do in the case of a seat being vacated. Our democracy has to be resilient in the face of black swans of almost any stripe.
For democracy now to flourish and in acknowledgement that Jo Cox was elected for a full term i sincerely hope that all the other parties will not put candidates up at the byelection that will now sadly take place. That would be a fitting cross party response.
So you think the people who live in the constituency should not be represented for a few years.
How odd.
I think the point was a Labour member should be returned unopposed. I don't necessarily agree with it - we don't technically vote for parties and Cox seems to have had a personal vote that may not want to vote just for any candidate - but there is a certain logic to it.
I don't agree with the proposal at all. Tough as it may sound, it smacks of a ridiculous sentimentality. The proper course is after a decent period of time to have an election in the normal way.
People get killed, by malicious or deranged people, sadly. A mother and daughter were murdered in Liverpool a few days ago.
Murder is no reason at all to suspend democracy. Quite the contrary, in fact.
If the ref campaign is frozen now until Monday, when Leave have a lead that means Remain only have three days in effect to get back in the lead. I don't think we can necessarily say this stops Brexit.
Comments
When the Chilcot report is published, he will be all over the media (especially the BBC) crowing that he has come through it unscathed.
Can't be right.
Oxygen is a carcinogen. The very act of breathing can cause cancer. The longer you live the higher the chance you get cancer. As cells divide the can become damage, every single cell in your body is a result of an unbroken chain of cell division going back billions of years.
The very nature of our life brings us death.
EDIT - or they might mean the Palace of Westminster and got confused.
Indeed
Le Monde: Pro-European parliamentarian shot and killed
Nouvel obs: Assassination of Jo Cox: death of rising anti-Brexit star
Corriere della sera: Blood on the Brexit campaign: Death of Labour MP
Spiegel: British Labour MP dies after attack
El Pais: Shock after murder of British MP a week before referendum
What is also quite sad is people jumping to conclusions about why this happened.
It needn't be obtrusive but it seems it might be necessary if MPs are both to meet people openly and not be in danger of attack.
This is a genuine question. What do people think? I hate the idea - but I hate what's happened more.
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
On an unrelated note, someone posted earlier about strange bedfellows this campaign has created.
It's true that I've read more about the EU and more particularly, the British views on the EU, both for and against, from left and right and I do feel more educated and informed as a result.
We also been exposed to new political players that perhaps some of us hadn't come across before - Andrea Leadsom and Gisela Stuart in particular.
My question to you all is do you think this referendum has made you more politically engaged? Or is it simply another betting opportunity? Could you consider voting for a different party now?
Also, cancers amongst the young and middle age have increased - hadn't you noticed?
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/teenagers-and-young-adults-cancers/incidence
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/07/18/cancer-rates-jump-by-20-per-cent-among-the-uk’s-middle-aged-but-why/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36551737
How odd.
The fact is that drug companies always show the statistic that most supports their case (usually relative percentages, rather than absolute numbers, and never number needed to treat). Let's take an example:
Breast cancer screening:
1. Relative risk reduction for screened women over unscreened women over a 10 year horizon = 25%. Sounds good, right?
2. Absolute risk reduction is that one extra women in 1000 is saved from cancer. Not quite so attractive.
3. Number needed to treat - 1000 women need to be treated to save one life. I.e. 1000 people have to suffer inconvenience and anxiety for ten years to save one life. Sounds authoritarian
4. Increase in life expectancy. Women who participate in screening from age 50 to 69 increase their life expectancy by 12 days. Does that seem worth the candle?
I would provide references, but what's the point? You won't read them and claim that I am resorting to argument by authority. But that is the evidence based on real world statistics.
And, yes, I do have an NIH email address.
If political, the first time since 1990 (and even if any 'political' link is found, it's already clear it will be of secondary importance to mental issues)
We don't routinely arm the Police. Most of them are against it, even though they know some will pay with their lives to protect us.
What happened today is an incredible sad, but still - thankfully - incredibly rare incident.
I think it's been fantastic.
Even so, it is still very very rare, and is it a significant step to make such a change to how these things are done. Valar dohaeris
I have no idea who I could possibly vote for anymore. The Tories are about to be a confused, contradictory mess, likely ditching the things I like for things I do not, Corbynite Labour are simply unpalatable, the LDs nationally appear to be being doing nothing, and as a economically rightish socially leftish leaning centrist I doubt they want my vote anyway, UKIP generally seem to be correct on only one issue, the EU, and there is no one else.
I decided at the last minute in 2015 to vote LD partly out of habit, partly out of sympathy and partly on the basis they'd worked harder for my vote (by actually working for it, unlike the other parties, it being a safe Tory seat). It being such a safe seat makes my vote pointless anyway, but I feel it a duty to vote, so god only knows which way I'll end up going in the General Election we might well get this year.
I expect the parties will stand but run a shadow campaign.
From that point of view a 4 runway hub airport would be a great idea.
As altitude of living location increase lung cancer rates decrease.
Amazingly enough oxygen is a key component of oxidantion damage of cells. The body is built to prevent it but can only do so much against the constant bombardment it takes.
If you add some malt, hops and a bit of yeast.
I'm testing the theory now and will report my findings (assuming I survive).
The rather sad part was that he couldn't understand why his serious and well-intentioned point caused everyone to burst out laughing.
Didn't you?
I'm in my mid-forties and some of the kids in my class had asthma. One had coeliac disease. Others had allergies.
My Chemistry teacher, who was comparatively young, died of leukemia.
So... what's your point?
EDIT. Apparently it has been edited slightly.
That's what this referendum is about for me. We are being asked to vote Remain out of fear from the powers-that-be that, if we don't do as they say, we will face "consequences" as "deserters" or made an example of to deter others.
But I want the powers-that-be to be scared of *us*. Only then do we have true liberty and control.
And, unless we vote Leave, we never will have.
PJ O'Rourke
My daughter was hit from behind by a vehicle whilst walking on the pavement.
Many witnesses at the scene said she was in the road.
It was proved by other evidence that this was not the case.
The mind set told them what they saw, as they believe that the pedestrian must have been on the road.
Yes, but the two examples you give are still rare, and there may be previous obscure cases which don't permit us to reject the hypothesis:-
It's very rare, and grief should not induce us to over-react.
(Specifically, the wing mirror hit me at about 30mph. I had an amazing shaped bruise.)
The problem with these organisations is they try to pin the problems on a few bad apples, even when it is the most prominent figures, when the truth is there is a problem with the orchard.
One of my favourite quotes about his work goes:
"Whenever I find my will to live becoming too strong, I read Peter Watts."
The things that can go wrong with the way we process sensory information are myriad. Check out the Cotard Delusion. The patient believes they are dead.
This is also interesting, if only to show how plastic and awesome (in the old-fashioned sense of the word) our brains are:
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116
*edit* Plunder Peter's site Seant, there's a book in there for you somewhere
Which is not to say someone should not face criticism or consequences as as result, and a publication has the right to decide it does not want to touch it with a bargepole.
Murder is no reason at all to suspend democracy. Quite the contrary, in fact.