I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.
Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.
A key Countryside Alliance message was that town folk don't understand countryside ways, so country people should be allowed to decide things for themselves. In other words turn the discussion from whether hunting foxes is a good idea to who decides? Given that, it wasn't a smart tactical move to go to town to tell bemused bystanders, you're all wrong, especially when marches tend to alienate onlookers anyway.
On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.
Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.
After the GE I doubt we will ever hear anything about fox-hunting from the Tories ever again.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
Incidentally, the second language appearing in a UK passport is not French....
Gaelic?
Welsh then Gaelic (I presume on a numbers speaking them basis).
My British passport is English / French.
My Irish passport is Gaelic / English.
I assume they must vary them, though not sure about the logic of who gets what.
I am pretty certain that all UK passports are the same - and my last one was issued in Germany so dont think it depends where you live....
But check out the first page inside the cover - First words say European Union - followed immediately below by Undeb Ewropaidd
They brought this in a few (8 ? ) years ago - so possibly if your passport is older than this it might be English & French but curreny is definietle Welsh
News from the frontline - three teaching assistants laid off at the primary school where a friend sends her kids and the head teacher voluntarily taking a small pay cut on top. There are these kinds of cuts in all the schools around here. Parents notice. It's not just Brexit and it's not just dementia tax.
The money is there, its all a question of priorities and imported consumer tat and foreign holidays are deemed a higher priority by many millions of people.
As I said a few days ago it was notable that the main reason for the increase in inflation was said to be the rising cost of foreign holidays and computer games. It is not exactly the stuff of which third world nightmares are made.
It isn't. But we were promised a Brexit that delivers increasing prosperity and more opportunities. Politically, therefore, if the Brexit process is actually making foreign holidays, computer games and other "luxuries" less affordable that is an issue.
Dear Lord. It took us 40 years to get this far and you expect the benefits of us regaining control over our own economic future to manifest themselves before we even leave? That's insane. The full gains from Brexit may take a decade to embed themselves.
I doubt any of us on PB will ever live to see the "full gains" from Brexit.
That is one of my primary objections. If we do get benefits they will be decades away and then they will take decades more to wipe out the "full pains" inflicted on the UK. So, maybe by 2100 we might get the benefits - assuming we have not rejoined by then and made the whole thing a pointless exercise.
News from the frontline - three teaching assistants laid off at the primary school where a friend sends her kids and the head teacher voluntarily taking a small pay cut on top. There are these kinds of cuts in all the schools around here. Parents notice. It's not just Brexit and it's not just dementia tax.
As regards the schools around here. Lots of the likes of the above, state schools struggling with cuts. However, there is one exception. Specifically, a large former private school has converted to free school status, the net effect of which is that the state will in future pay for the education of those whose parents were wealthy enough to choose to send their children to be educated there. The state has the same control over admissions as when it was a private school i.e. none.
So in our case, there may not have overall been a cut in state expenditure on schooling. Rather, across the board cuts in funding to existing state schools have been made in order to provide a windfall to the parents of those who chose to educate their children privately. To cap it all, the school in question has just had a visit from a member of the royal family in order to celebrate its new status.
And in future, bright children of all backgrounds (assuming the admissions policy is on some objective basis) will be able to benefit. There may be a deadweight cost for about 5 years
I thought you (I believe you're relatively left wing) would be pleased with that
These figs would surely imply a huge Labour lead, and if you believe the polls there isn't. In any event the Social care crap is dead, the winter fuel allowance will remain---Hurrah!/sorted
She will always be the PM who needlessly threw away her majority. In politics there is no escape from a big mistake.
Quite, I can't believe people are still discussing polls as opposed to what actually happens.
The perception, which is reflected in the reality of votes is that Corbyn did better than expected because he is sincere, and May the opposite. Perhaps finally politicians will tell us what they think and allow us to decide rather than avoid questions.
I've no idea why anybody would pay a polling company anymore.
Because they want to know which detergent adverts people remember? (That type of thing being 95% of the revenues of firms like Survation and YouGov.)
Yeah I get that, an accurate political poll is one that pleases you, beyond that they're pointless. Few people have a vested interest in soap powder.
That's something I don't get about polling firms. Why do they bother doing political polling at all - the publicity has surely not been much help since 1992. Why not just stop political polling entirely and focus on the money making soap powder polls. If I was running a business where I wanted to get some product polling, I really don't think I would look twice at their political polling records to help me.
Because, once perfected, there is a huge amount of money to be made.
Not just in political betting, but the parties will pay a lot of money to know how to target their resources (we have seen how the Tories completely misjudged the battle-front & hence wasted millions of pounds and resources).
The biggest winner was YouGov's seat model. That is now a very attractive piece of research, that YouGov will be able to make a lot of very serious money on.
Like all research, once the problem is cracked wide open, the rewards are huge. And YouGov look as though they have the future of political polling in their hands.
I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.
Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.
A key Countryside Alliance message was that town folk don't understand countryside ways, so country people should be allowed to decide things for themselves. In other words turn the discussion from whether hunting foxes is a good idea to who decides? Given that, it wasn't a smart tactical move to go to town to tell bemused bystanders, you're all wrong, especially when marches tend to alienate onlookers anyway.
On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.
Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.
I disagree with the "slippery slope", "thin end of the wedge" logic. Unless we allow absolutely everything or ban absolutely everything, each activity has to be assessed on its own merits. The lines we draw, whether to allow or ban, will often be arbitrary. Just about no-one thinks paedophilia is acceptable. For my own part, I am borderline on fox-hunting. I have absolutely no intention of doing any myself. On the whole, I think the onus is on those that want to ban things to make their case and I personally want a strong case before signing up. Fox hunting is cruel, but is it cruel enough to ban other people doing it? I don't know.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
Tyson sorry to have mistaken you for Roger. You mad lefties all look alike to me.
I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.
Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.
A key Countryside Alliance message was that town folk don't understand countryside ways, so country people should be allowed to decide things for themselves. In other words turn the discussion from whether hunting foxes is a good idea to who decides? Given that, it wasn't a smart tactical move to go to town to tell bemused bystanders, you're all wrong, especially when marches tend to alienate onlookers anyway.
On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.
Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.
Rog you must be having a turn, after your comments about being terrified of Muslim women yesterday.
Paedophilia is illegal. Killing foxes is not. Foxes are killed every day. It is simply a matter of how they are killed. You, and the anti-hunting lot, don't like people dressing up and enjoying their sport. Fine. You are at liberty not to like such people. But whether someone kills a fox with a smile on their face, or weeping tears of sorrow is irrelevant.
No....I accept culling is necessary in specific circumstances, though the rural fox population is reducing.....but killing them with large packs of hounds is disgusting and illegal and as Olly said....will remain so. No Tory will put it in their manifesto
It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.
Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?
The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.
That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.
Obsessional disorders are mental health conditions.....
All these mass killers suffer from extreme narcissistic personality disorder which by it's nature makes it impossible for them to show empathy. And, worryingly, extreme Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat....they do not respond to Pharma or Cognitive therapies. The best way I suppose is to try and identify them and point their obsessions on something that doesn't involve indiscriminate killing
I know. I was trying to find a way to differentiate between behaviour built around belief systems (whether religious or otherwise) vs "proper" mental health issues. For instance, assuming the man in the van is guilty, then he should be treated as someone who is guilty of attempted murder rather than someone who is sick. (Unless, of course, a psychiatrist's report proves beyond reasonable doubt that his presumed actions were a manifestation of his sickness not his beliefs)
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
If your wife was so traumatised and worried about her parents, why didn't you stay in Italy?
News from the frontline - three teaching assistants laid off at the primary school where a friend sends her kids and the head teacher voluntarily taking a small pay cut on top. There are these kinds of cuts in all the schools around here. Parents notice. It's not just Brexit and it's not just dementia tax.
As regards the schools around here. Lots of the likes of the above, state schools struggling with cuts. However, there is one exception. Specifically, a large former private school has converted to free school status, the net effect of which is that the state will in future pay for the education of those whose parents were wealthy enough to choose to send their children to be educated there. The state has the same control over admissions as when it was a private school i.e. none.
So in our case, there may not have overall been a cut in state expenditure on schooling. Rather, across the board cuts in funding to existing state schools have been made in order to provide a windfall to the parents of those who chose to educate their children privately. To cap it all, the school in question has just had a visit from a member of the royal family in order to celebrate its new status.
And in future, bright children of all backgrounds (assuming the admissions policy is on some objective basis) will be able to benefit. There may be a deadweight cost for about 5 years
I thought you (I believe you're relatively left wing) would be pleased with that
It's a totally unnecessary deadweight cost that is being paid by the parents of children who will lose out as a result of it being incurred. Why on earth would anyone be pleased with that?
I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.
Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.
A key Countryside Alliance message was that town folk don't understand countryside ways, so country people should be allowed to decide things for themselves. In other words turn the discussion from whether hunting foxes is a good idea to who decides? Given that, it wasn't a smart tactical move to go to town to tell bemused bystanders, you're all wrong, especially when marches tend to alienate onlookers anyway.
On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.
Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.
Rog you must be having a turn, after your comments about being terrified of Muslim women yesterday.
Paedophilia is illegal. Killing foxes is not. Foxes are killed every day. It is simply a matter of how they are killed. You, and the anti-hunting lot, don't like people dressing up and enjoying their sport. Fine. You are at liberty not to like such people. But whether someone kills a fox with a smile on their face, or weeping tears of sorrow is irrelevant.
No....I accept culling is necessary in specific circumstances, though the rural fox population is reducing.....but killing them with large packs of hounds is disgusting and illegal and as Olly said....will remain so. No Tory will put it in their manifesto
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.
Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?
The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.
That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.
Obsessional disorders are mental health conditions.....
All these mass killers suffer from extreme narcissistic personality disorder which by it's nature makes it impossible for them to show empathy. And, worryingly, extreme Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat....they do not respond to Pharma or Cognitive therapies. The best way I suppose is to try and identify them and point their obsessions on something that doesn't involve indiscriminate killing
I know. I was trying to find a way to differentiate between behaviour built around belief systems (whether religious or otherwise) vs "proper" mental health issues. For instance, assuming the man in the van is guilty, then he should be treated as someone who is guilty of attempted murder rather than someone who is sick. (Unless, of course, a psychiatrist's report proves beyond reasonable doubt that his presumed actions were a manifestation of his sickness not his beliefs)
I suspect there's often an overlap between the two: people with mental health issues are often drawn to religion, which offers a structure missing from their everyday lives. Look at SeanT for example.
It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.
Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?
The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.
That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.
It is an argument for a much greater emphasis on mental health issues, though; especially among young men. A lot of Europe's home-grown Moslem terrorists seem to have damaged backgrounds and spent time in prison where they become radicalised. It might be worth investing more money in mental health monitoring and treatments in prison. The amounts spent would be tiny in comparison to the costs of potential catastrophes averted.
Yes. It was one of things that I thought was best about May's performance on QT.
Mental health is important, and often neglected. For instance, veterans are one of the biggest component of the homeless population, often driven by mental health issues
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
Incidentally, the second language appearing in a UK passport is not French....
Gaelic?
Welsh then Gaelic (I presume on a numbers speaking them basis).
My British passport is English / French.
My Irish passport is Gaelic / English.
I assume they must vary them, though not sure about the logic of who gets what.
I am pretty certain that all UK passports are the same - and my last one was issued in Germany so dont think it depends where you live....
But check out the first page inside the cover - First words say European Union - followed immediately below by Undeb Ewropaidd
They brought this in a few (8 ? ) years ago - so possibly if your passport is older than this it might be English & French but curreny is definietle Welsh
Mine is around 8 years old, and also has European Union followed by Yr Undeb Ewropaidd then Aonadh Eorpach, with the rest of the page similarly tri lingual. There doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule.
While I was at it I checked a previous passport issued under the aegis of the European Community; it has English plus nine other European languages (incl. Irish Gaelic). Changed days..
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.
Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.
On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.
Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.
Rog you must be having a turn, after your comments about being terrified of Muslim women yesterday.
Paedophilia is illegal. Killing foxes is not. Foxes are killed every day. It is simply a matter of how they are killed. You, and the anti-hunting lot, don't like people dressing up and enjoying their sport. Fine. You are at liberty not to like such people. But whether someone kills a fox with a smile on their face, or weeping tears of sorrow is irrelevant.
No....I accept culling is necessary in specific circumstances, though the rural fox population is reducing.....but killing them with large packs of hounds is disgusting and illegal and as Olly said....will remain so. No Tory will put it in their manifesto
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
Sorry to hear of your difficulties.
But to get back to your previous comment, didn't you choose to live in Italy, a country that seems to have no problem with hunting....?
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
If your wife was so traumatised and worried about her parents, why didn't you stay in Italy?
Because he was worried about having to pay too much tax to the UK government
I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.
Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.
On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.
Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.
Rog you must be having a turn, after your comments about being terrified of Muslim women yesterday.
Paedophilia is illegal. Killing foxes is not. Foxes are killed every day. It is simply a matter of how they are killed. You, and the anti-hunting lot, don't like people dressing up and enjoying their sport. Fine. You are at liberty not to like such people. But whether someone kills a fox with a smile on their face, or weeping tears of sorrow is irrelevant.
No....I accept culling is necessary in specific circumstances, though the rural fox population is reducing.....but killing them with large packs of hounds is disgusting and illegal and as Olly said....will remain so. No Tory will put it in their manifesto
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
I doubt any of us on PB will ever live to see the "full gains" from Brexit.
There are no practical upsides to Brexit. Philosophical ones, maybe, depending on your point of view.
Unless the EU collapses in a heap of dust, in which case we can be very smug having got out ahead of time. Otherwise it's just a question of how much we can limit the damage.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
If your wife was so traumatised and worried about her parents, why didn't you stay in Italy?
Yes - Tyson and his wife have been presented with a really shit choice with major downsides on both sides, haven't they? I may be a woolly-headed, Britain-hating traitor, but my instinct is to feel that it could all have been averted by a government with more nous and compassion.
Yes. It was one of things that I thought was best about May's performance on QT.
Mental health is important, and often neglected. For instance, veterans are one of the biggest component of the homeless population, often driven by mental health issues
Oddly enough, it may be one of the enduring legacies of the Coalition Government that mental health came back up the public policy agenda. Many are responsible for that including Theresa May and Norman Lamb but it's to the credit of that Government that an often-taboo subject and issue is now getting the time, money and prominence it deserves.
You are of course correct Charles to cite the example of former armed forces personnel and I would add other former blue-light people to that.
It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.
Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?
The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.
That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.
Obsessional disorders are mental health conditions.....
All these mass killers suffer from extreme narcissistic personality disorder which by it's nature makes it impossible for them to show empathy. And, worryingly, extreme Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat....they do not respond to Pharma or Cognitive therapies. The best way I suppose is to try and identify them and point their obsessions on something that doesn't involve indiscriminate killing
I know. I was trying to find a way to differentiate between behaviour built around belief systems (whether religious or otherwise) vs "proper" mental health issues. For instance, assuming the man in the van is guilty, then he should be treated as someone who is guilty of attempted murder rather than someone who is sick. (Unless, of course, a psychiatrist's report proves beyond reasonable doubt that his presumed actions were a manifestation of his sickness not his beliefs)
I suspect there's often an overlap between the two: people with mental health issues are often drawn to religion, which offers a structure missing from their everyday lives. Look at SeanT for example.
Is the worship of 22-yr old nubile Corbynistettes a thing, then?
News from the frontline - three teaching assistants laid off at the primary school where a friend sends her kids and the head teacher voluntarily taking a small pay cut on top. There are these kinds of cuts in all the schools around here. Parents notice. It's not just Brexit and it's not just dementia tax.
As regards the schools around here. Lots of the likes of the above, state schools struggling with cuts. However, there is one exception. Specifically, a large former private school has converted to free school status, the net effect of which is that the state will in future pay for the education of those whose parents were wealthy enough to choose to send their children to be educated there. The state has the same control over admissions as when it was a private school i.e. none.
So in our case, there may not have overall been a cut in state expenditure on schooling. Rather, across the board cuts in funding to existing state schools have been made in order to provide a windfall to the parents of those who chose to educate their children privately. To cap it all, the school in question has just had a visit from a member of the royal family in order to celebrate its new status.
And in future, bright children of all backgrounds (assuming the admissions policy is on some objective basis) will be able to benefit. There may be a deadweight cost for about 5 years
I thought you (I believe you're relatively left wing) would be pleased with that
It's a totally unnecessary deadweight cost that is being paid by the parents of children who will lose out as a result of it being incurred. Why on earth would anyone be pleased with that?
Virtually every policy has a deadweight cost - means testing tries to address this.
If it is a good school (and presumably it is, given that people have been paying for it) then it is a social benefit for it to be open to all children regardless of means. The deadweight cost (approximately 3 years worth of fees, assuming a 5 year school cycle) is far less than the cost of expanding capacity in the state sector.
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.
Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?
The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.
That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.
Obsessional disorders are mental health conditions.....
All these mass killers suffer from extreme narcissistic personality disorder which by it's nature makes it impossible for them to show empathy. And, worryingly, extreme Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat....they do not respond to Pharma or Cognitive therapies. The best way I suppose is to try and identify them and point their obsessions on something that doesn't involve indiscriminate killing
I know. I was trying to find a way to differentiate between behaviour built around belief systems (whether religious or otherwise) vs "proper" mental health issues. For instance, assuming the man in the van is guilty, then he should be treated as someone who is guilty of attempted murder rather than someone who is sick. (Unless, of course, a psychiatrist's report proves beyond reasonable doubt that his presumed actions were a manifestation of his sickness not his beliefs)
I suspect there's often an overlap between the two: people with mental health issues are often drawn to religion, which offers a structure missing from their everyday lives. Look at SeanT for example.
Probably, also they are often susceptible to persuasive and charismatic individuals who can act as leaders
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
If your wife was so traumatised and worried about her parents, why didn't you stay in Italy?
Yes - Tyson and his wife have been presented with a really shit choice with major downsides on both sides, haven't they? I may be a woolly-headed, Britain-hating traitor, but my instinct is to feel that it could all have been averted by a government with more nous and compassion.
Why should HMG care about Tyson's lifestyle choice?
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
Some examples of abusive placards? I was on the March and don't recall them
It's a long time ago, but I recall some very nasty ones about Blair. With his current unpopularity, many people will see nothing wrong with that, but as a way of influencing Government MPs it was a bad idea.
A problem for all march organisers is that they're not really motivated to discourage participants who've brought their own placards (likewise the SWP and other fringe groups at left-wing demos) - it takes a very firm policy to say "You can't carry that in our demo".
With all due respect, Nick, I think you have created a false memory to justify your own worldview.
Hunting is a minority activity, which is important to a small group of people. (Personally I don't really care). The most significant issue is one of liberty.
"Slobodan Blair" feels OTT and counter productive.
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
Not thinking you have benefited from EU membership does not mean that you have not benefited from EU membership.
Not the right moment for the elite to explain to the non-elite how they have got it wrong, that said.
Sadly, the Elite told the non-Elite lots of lies during the referendum campaign in the full belief that it would not be on the receiving side whatever the result. But it could just be that the Elite gets lumbered with Jeremy Corbyn.
It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.
Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?
The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.
That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.
Obsessional disorders are mental health conditions.....
All these mass killers suffer from extreme narcissistic personality disorder which by it's nature makes it impossible for them to show empathy. And, worryingly, extreme Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat....they do not respond to Pharma or Cognitive therapies. The best way I suppose is to try and identify them and point their obsessions on something that doesn't involve indiscriminate killing
I know. I was trying to find a way to differentiate between behaviour built around belief systems (whether religious or otherwise) vs "proper" mental health issues. For instance, assuming the man in the van is guilty, then he should be treated as someone who is guilty of attempted murder rather than someone who is sick. (Unless, of course, a psychiatrist's report proves beyond reasonable doubt that his presumed actions were a manifestation of his sickness not his beliefs)
I suspect there's often an overlap between the two: people with mental health issues are often drawn to religion, which offers a structure missing from their everyday lives. Look at SeanT for example.
Probably, also they are often susceptible to persuasive and charismatic individuals who can act as leaders
I suspect that prison governor's have also encouraged religion of all kind in prisons, because it keeps the prisoners occupied, even when it has negative long term implications. That needs to change.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.
What is it, though?
My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.
Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.
Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.
What is it, though?
My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.
Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.
Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
If your wife was so traumatised and worried about her parents, why didn't you stay in Italy?
Yes - Tyson and his wife have been presented with a really shit choice with major downsides on both sides, haven't they? I may be a woolly-headed, Britain-hating traitor, but my instinct is to feel that it could all have been averted by a government with more nous and compassion.
Why should HMG care about Tyson's lifestyle choice?
HMG should care about what is best for the UK. Leaving millions of individuals in the lurch is not good for them and is not good for the country.
"But really, the manifesto was calculated to upset young people, old people, and middle -aged people."
So next election manifestos will include
No Tuition Fees Higher Pensions
Just need something for the 25 - 65 year olds. Tax relief on the interest payments on Mortgages? Soon Interest rates will be rising with devastating effect on mortgage payers.
I think the current system of student loans should be retained, but with interest capped at the inflation rate and the exchequer picking up the difference. The middle classes shouldn't be subsidised to go to university by the less well off.
I think its too late for that level of nuance to achieve anything useful.
Better to switch to a graduate tax, with a starting level of £20k, at a rate of 5% and payable until retirement. The exact same effect as the current system - although easier to dodge - but the optics are better.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.
What is it, though?
My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.
Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.
Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.
Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?
The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.
That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.
Obsessional disorders are mental health conditions.....
All these mass killers suffer from extreme narcissistic personality disorder which by it's nature makes it impossible for them to show empathy. And, worryingly, extreme Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat....they do not respond to Pharma or Cognitive therapies. The best way I suppose is to try and identify them and point their obsessions on something that doesn't involve indiscriminate killing
I know. I was trying to find a way to differentiate between behaviour built around belief systems (whether religious or otherwise) vs "proper" mental health issues. For instance, assuming the man in the van is guilty, then he should be treated as someone who is guilty of attempted murder rather than someone who is sick. (Unless, of course, a psychiatrist's report proves beyond reasonable doubt that his presumed actions were a manifestation of his sickness not his beliefs)
I suspect there's often an overlap between the two: people with mental health issues are often drawn to religion, which offers a structure missing from their everyday lives. Look at SeanT for example.
Is the worship of 22-yr old nubile Corbynistettes a thing, then?
Sean appears to have many gods: Mammon, Venus, Dionysus ....and, not least, SeanT.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
If your wife was so traumatised and worried about her parents, why didn't you stay in Italy?
Yes - Tyson and his wife have been presented with a really shit choice with major downsides on both sides, haven't they? I may be a woolly-headed, Britain-hating traitor, but my instinct is to feel that it could all have been averted by a government with more nous and compassion.
Why should HMG care about Tyson's lifestyle choice?
HMG should care about what is best for the UK. Leaving millions of individuals in the lurch is not good for them and is not good for the country.
As has been pointed out down thread by another poster, Tyson's move would appear to be influenced by legal tax avoidance measures. That is not HMG's problem.
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
Not thinking you have benefited from EU membership does not mean that you have not benefited from EU membership.
The Elite know best......
Perceived effects of immigration... Elite/Public Has been good for country: 57 / 25 Neutral : 16 / 31 Has been bad for country 24 / 44
Net Good: +33 / -19
NB - this is a European study across 10 countries - not just the UK
Key word - "perceived".
The elite types have never been to the places where it negatively affects the public, so they 'perceived' it to be a net good? Agreed, I like your thinking
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
We had Trump obviously (an ironically) and Gove, with his 'no experts' stuff, but who started it?
It was concocted by a very wealthy right wing elite to convey the impression that those who do not agree with the right wing elite are out of touch. It seemed very clever at the time. It may turn out to be less so if it leads to a Corbyn government.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
Not thinking you have benefited from EU membership does not mean that you have not benefited from EU membership.
The Elite know best......
Perceived effects of immigration... Elite/Public Has been good for country: 57 / 25 Neutral : 16 / 31 Has been bad for country 24 / 44
Net Good: +33 / -19
NB - this is a European study across 10 countries - not just the UK
Key word - "perceived".
The elite types have never been to the places where it negatively affects the public, so they 'perceived' it to be a net good? Agreed, I like your thinking
Yep - and those who perceived it to be a bad thing have never connected it to cheaper goods and services, greater demand and more jobs. Swings and roundabouts.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
Mistrust the "elite" distinction. They are making false comparisons between general polls, which are valid in general, although there are some issues with this particular one, and a selected non-representative sample they have defined as elite. They are not comparing apples with apples.
For a simpler, more up-to-date and reliable poll, here's Pew. Support for the EU is clear everywhere except Greece, but there are minorities that disagree (mostly somewhat unfavourable rather than strongly unfavourable)
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
Not thinking you have benefited from EU membership does not mean that you have not benefited from EU membership.
The Elite know best......
Perceived effects of immigration... Elite/Public Has been good for country: 57 / 25 Neutral : 16 / 31 Has been bad for country 24 / 44
Net Good: +33 / -19
NB - this is a European study across 10 countries - not just the UK
Key word - "perceived".
The elite types have never been to the places where it negatively affects the public, so they 'perceived' it to be a net good? Agreed, I like your thinking
Yep - and those who perceived it to be a bad thing have never connected it to cheaper goods and services, greater demand and more jobs. Swings and roundabouts.
Yes the elite feel they've done well out of it and the public feel they haven't. Ladders and Snakes.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
A nation that does its shopping in supermarkets does not deserve a say on rural affairs.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
OK, I will be more blunt about it.
I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible 2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc. 3) Kill it as quickly as possible
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
I think you are being generous. People (rural areas have their fair share of antis) simply don't like the people who hunt. They are therefore blind to the illogicality of their position.
We had Trump obviously (an ironically) and Gove, with his 'no experts' stuff, but who started it?
It was concocted by a very wealthy right wing elite to convey the impression that those who do not agree with the right wing elite are out of touch. It seemed very clever at the time. It may turn out to be less so if it leads to a Corbyn government.
Elite really doesn't mean very much apart from 'people that I disagree with'.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
Isn't one of the benefits of Brexit that we can put an end to rural food production and get superior cheap imports from the former colonies?
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
OK, I will be more blunt about it.
I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible 2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc. 3) Kill it as quickly as possible
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
OK, I will be more blunt about it.
I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible 2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc. 3) Kill it as quickly as possible
Does that include rats and mice? How about flies? How about male chicks?
I am happy to discuss the whys and wherefores of hunting all day long (have to go in about 15 mins!), and I respect your evident raw emotions about humanity and the animal kingdom. But it really is just not that simple.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
A nation that does its shopping in supermarkets does not deserve a say on rural affairs.
Rural people who live high on the hog on urban money do not deserve a say, full stop.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
OK, I will be more blunt about it.
I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible 2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc. 3) Kill it as quickly as possible
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
An example - This weekend I had an extended discussion with my local butcher about ordering a sizeable quatity of belly and loin of pork for porchetta and a quantity of veal for vitello tonnato. Can't do that in your local supermarket.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
OK, I will be more blunt about it.
I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible 2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc. 3) Kill it as quickly as possible
Does that include rats and mice? How about flies? How about male chicks?
I am happy to discuss the whys and wherefores of hunting all day long (have to go in about 15 mins!), and I respect your evident raw emotions about humanity and the animal kingdom. But it really is just not that simple.
I appreciate it is a complex issue, but points 1 and 3 can be applied whether the animals are used for food or not. Vermin can be controlled better through proper waste management. They tend to thrive were we are sloppy.
We had Trump obviously (an ironically) and Gove, with his 'no experts' stuff, but who started it?
Yes. Clearly multi-billionaire Donald Trump who inherited a property portfolio of the finest New York real estate is the most authentic warrior against the "elite". As indeed is privately and Oxbridge educated, former leader writer/editor at the Times newspaper, government Minister since a young age, Michael Gove.
In terms of the thread my first thought was no shit sherlock lol. That social care policy and manifesto itself was never going to go down well with that demographic.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
A nation that does its shopping in supermarkets does not deserve a say on rural affairs.
Rural people who live high on the hog on urban money do not deserve a say, full stop.
Do not hide behind innuendo and hyperbole Alastair, tell us what you really think
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
A nation that does its shopping in supermarkets does not deserve a say on rural affairs.
Rural people who live high on the hog on urban money do not deserve a say, full stop.
Snigger. I'm a Townie tbf but I shop as a country mouse at local butchers and use Norwich market for fish and veg shopping. Supermarkets are useful for household goods and smellies. It's fun trying to budget that on breadline income, but it's doable cos I'm not looking after smalls. We've utterly decimated our agrarian lifestyle and we don't make anything, it's difficult to see what GB PLC offers the world.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
A nation that does its shopping in supermarkets does not deserve a say on rural affairs.
Rural people who live high on the hog on urban money do not deserve a say, full stop.
You should try that line with your neighbours in Orbán's Hungary.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
OK, I will be more blunt about it.
I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible 2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc. 3) Kill it as quickly as possible
Does that include rats and mice? How about flies? How about male chicks?
I am happy to discuss the whys and wherefores of hunting all day long (have to go in about 15 mins!), and I respect your evident raw emotions about humanity and the animal kingdom. But it really is just not that simple.
I appreciate it is a complex issue, but points 1 and 3 can be applied whether the animals are used for food or not. Vermin can be controlled better through proper waste management. They tend to thrive were we are sloppy.
1 is subjective. You have a rat infestation. Keep them? Kill them? Some people like rats.
3 I think is superseded by the cruelty involved. Try not to be cruel to animals. People of course say that to chase a fox until it is exhausted and then rip it apart using a pack of hounds is cruel. And indeed were it you or I being chased it would be cruel. But the issue is far less clear cut if you are a fox, as determined by the Burns enquiry. Plus I suppose the analogy again is with a rat. If you are trying to kill one (people often use Sealyham terriers) then there is a chase involved and that chase is arguably less cruel than other methods, which should be the determining factor).
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
A nation that does its shopping in supermarkets does not deserve a say on rural affairs.
Rural people who live high on the hog on urban money do not deserve a say, full stop.
Speaking of livestock - when is Lily Allen eating that goat ?
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
An example - This weekend I had an extended discussion with my local butcher about ordering a sizeable quatity of belly and loin of pork for porchetta and a quantity of veal for vitello tonnato. Can't do that in your local supermarket.
How do you like your Steak? Not pink and in hermetically sealed packaging please. We buy crap cos it's cheap.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
A nation that does its shopping in supermarkets does not deserve a say on rural affairs.
Rural people who live high on the hog on urban money do not deserve a say, full stop.
We had our village pig roast at the weekend. Yum,yum.
I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible 2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc. 3) Kill it as quickly as possible
The issue is that foxes are vermin, like rats, not food animals.
We all agree that it should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible. The problem is with the alternatives to hunting: trapping, poisoning and shooting all have their disadvantages. If you do nothing then you end up with the problems of urban foxes and overcrowding/starvation.
The Burns Inquiry did not reach the conclusion that hunting was cruel - it certainly proposed that there were aspects which could be better regulated (and which most hunters would agree with) but ultimately it was a political decision to ban hunting, not one driven by animal welfare considerations
"The committee's most reported conclusion was that hunting with dogs "seriously compromises" the welfare of the quarry species.[6] In line with its remit, the committee did not, however, draw any conclusion on whether hunting should be banned or should continue.[3] In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area.
The optimal solution from a pure animal welfare perspective would be to reintroduce the foxes natural predators. But voters seem to have an issue with wolves and bears being released into the wild...
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
An example - This weekend I had an extended discussion with my local butcher about ordering a sizeable quatity of belly and loin of pork for porchetta and a quantity of veal for vitello tonnato. Can't do that in your local supermarket.
How do you like your Steak? Not pink and in hermetically sealed packaging please. We buy crap cos it's cheap.
Eat less meat and when you do, eat the best quality! We eat meat 2 - 3 times a week with veg and pulses the rest of the time. All meals delicious and the variety makes eating a pleasure.
Mr. Woolie, there's a reason why almost every F1 team is based in the UK. We're excellent at high end engineering.
Isn't that the problem though Morris? High end stuff doesn't employ a nation, nor does it keep it going. It provides a nice little earner for a few and permits elite sport full of money and privilege to flourish. We don't DO anything, we just service stuff, and not that cheaply. I just don't see what we offer the world as a nation anymore. We are a bit pointless. Like the mad old aunt who everyone loves cos she used to roast Nazis on a spit whilst her husband thatched roofs but now she just eats all the Turkey and spends the afternoon following through on your favourite armchair.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
An example - This weekend I had an extended discussion with my local butcher about ordering a sizeable quatity of belly and loin of pork for porchetta and a quantity of veal for vitello tonnato. Can't do that in your local supermarket.
How do you like your Steak? Not pink and in hermetically sealed packaging please. We buy crap cos it's cheap.
Eat less meat and when you do, eat the best quality! We eat meat 2 - 3 times a week with veg and pulses the rest of the time. All meals delicious and the variety makes eating a pleasure.
I have reduced my meat intake, although I am a fervent seafood lover and eat fish 3 times a week or so. Veg and pulse curries and stir fries are a favourite too.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
An example - This weekend I had an extended discussion with my local butcher about ordering a sizeable quatity of belly and loin of pork for porchetta and a quantity of veal for vitello tonnato. Can't do that in your local supermarket.
How do you like your Steak? Not pink and in hermetically sealed packaging please. We buy crap cos it's cheap.
Eat less meat and when you do, eat the best quality! We eat meat 2 - 3 times a week with veg and pulses the rest of the time. All meals delicious and the variety makes eating a pleasure.
I have reduced my meat intake, although I am a fervent seafood lover and eat fish 3 times a week or so. Veg and pulse curries and stir fries are a favourite too.
The 40% vote for Corbyn shows that there are still plenty of people naive enough to think they can have everything for free from the government and someone else will pay fot it.
Older people more likely to have seen it all before and know it doesn't work. Younger people brought up on debt don't yet appreciate that they will be asked to repay the debt.
Even worse the current generation are living on massive governmnet debt which is increasing each year and the next generation will have to refinance this debt as well as pay for themselves.
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
Not thinking you have benefited from EU membership does not mean that you have not benefited from EU membership.
The Elite know best......
Perceived effects of immigration... Elite/Public Has been good for country: 57 / 25 Neutral : 16 / 31 Has been bad for country 24 / 44
Net Good: +33 / -19
NB - this is a European study across 10 countries - not just the UK
Key word - "perceived".
The elite types have never been to the places where it negatively affects the public, so they 'perceived' it to be a net good? Agreed, I like your thinking
Yep - and those who perceived it to be a bad thing have never connected it to cheaper goods and services, greater demand and more jobs. Swings and roundabouts.
Yes the elite feel they've done well out of it and the public feel they haven't. Ladders and Snakes.
Yep - it's all about perception. Many will start to discover the benefits of EU membership when we have left.
Comments
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
But check out the first page inside the cover - First words say European Union - followed immediately below by Undeb Ewropaidd
They brought this in a few (8 ? ) years ago - so possibly if your passport is older than this it might be English & French but curreny is definietle Welsh
I thought you (I believe you're relatively left wing) would be pleased with that
Not just in political betting, but the parties will pay a lot of money to know how to target their resources (we have seen how the Tories completely misjudged the battle-front & hence wasted millions of pounds and resources).
The biggest winner was YouGov's seat model. That is now a very attractive piece of research, that YouGov will be able to make a lot of very serious money on.
Like all research, once the problem is cracked wide open, the rewards are huge. And YouGov look as though they have the future of political polling in their hands.
Point about hunting still stands, mind.
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2017-06-20-future-europe-attitudes-raines-goodwin-cutts-final.pdf
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
Mental health is important, and often neglected. For instance, veterans are one of the biggest component of the homeless population, often driven by mental health issues
While I was at it I checked a previous passport issued under the aegis of the European Community; it has English plus nine other European languages (incl. Irish Gaelic). Changed days..
But to get back to your previous comment, didn't you choose to live in Italy, a country that seems to have no problem with hunting....?
Unless the EU collapses in a heap of dust, in which case we can be very smug having got out ahead of time. Otherwise it's just a question of how much we can limit the damage.
You are of course correct Charles to cite the example of former armed forces personnel and I would add other former blue-light people to that.
If it is a good school (and presumably it is, given that people have been paying for it) then it is a social benefit for it to be open to all children regardless of means. The deadweight cost (approximately 3 years worth of fees, assuming a 5 year school cycle) is far less than the cost of expanding capacity in the state sector.
Perceived effects of immigration...
Elite/Public
Has been good for country: 57 / 25
Neutral : 16 / 31
Has been bad for country 24 / 44
Net Good: +33 / -19
NB - this is a European study across 10 countries - not just the UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/459787.stm
What is it, though?
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/877087376727781376
Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.
Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.
We had Trump obviously (an ironically) and Gove, with his 'no experts' stuff, but who started it?
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/ireland-wont-sign-brexit-deal-unless-good-friday-agreement-protected/
Better to switch to a graduate tax, with a starting level of £20k, at a rate of 5% and payable until retirement. The exact same effect as the current system - although easier to dodge - but the optics are better.
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
made crime worse
Elite: -24
Public: +26
put strain on welfare state
Elite: -14
Public: +34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1lyNt5km8U
Elite: 32
Public: 54
Country is a better place today
Elite: 42
Public: 27
Net 'better place today:
Elite: +10
Public: -27
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
For a simpler, more up-to-date and reliable poll, here's Pew. Support for the EU is clear everywhere except Greece, but there are minorities that disagree (mostly somewhat unfavourable rather than strongly unfavourable)
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/
I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible
2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc.
3) Kill it as quickly as possible
I am happy to discuss the whys and wherefores of hunting all day long (have to go in about 15 mins!), and I respect your evident raw emotions about humanity and the animal kingdom. But it really is just not that simple.
Think I'll give it a miss, for now.
It's fun trying to budget that on breadline income, but it's doable cos I'm not looking after smalls.
We've utterly decimated our agrarian lifestyle and we don't make anything, it's difficult to see what GB PLC offers the world.
3 I think is superseded by the cruelty involved. Try not to be cruel to animals. People of course say that to chase a fox until it is exhausted and then rip it apart using a pack of hounds is cruel. And indeed were it you or I being chased it would be cruel. But the issue is far less clear cut if you are a fox, as determined by the Burns enquiry. Plus I suppose the analogy again is with a rat. If you are trying to kill one (people often use Sealyham terriers) then there is a chase involved and that chase is arguably less cruel than other methods, which should be the determining factor).
We buy crap cos it's cheap.
"beat us harder - oooh yes yes"
We all agree that it should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible. The problem is with the alternatives to hunting: trapping, poisoning and shooting all have their disadvantages. If you do nothing then you end up with the problems of urban foxes and overcrowding/starvation.
The Burns Inquiry did not reach the conclusion that hunting was cruel - it certainly proposed that there were aspects which could be better regulated (and which most hunters would agree with) but ultimately it was a political decision to ban hunting, not one driven by animal welfare considerations
"The committee's most reported conclusion was that hunting with dogs "seriously compromises" the welfare of the quarry species.[6] In line with its remit, the committee did not, however, draw any conclusion on whether hunting should be banned or should continue.[3] In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burns_Inquiry
The optimal solution from a pure animal welfare perspective would be to reintroduce the foxes natural predators. But voters seem to have an issue with wolves and bears being released into the wild...
Pointing out failure is not "aching for it".
Get over it. You won! Suck it up.
Don't mind your Hiroo Onoda retweets - but reserve the right to laugh at you for not moving on with life.
Male
Pale
Stale
Older people more likely to have seen it all before and know it doesn't work. Younger people brought up on debt don't yet appreciate that they will be asked to repay the debt.
Even worse the current generation are living on massive governmnet debt which is increasing each year and the next generation will have to refinance this debt as well as pay for themselves.