The minister is replying to journalists who think that asking questions about food shortages will generate good headlines.
There’s thousands of civil servants who spend their days planning for various eventualities, and there always have been. It’s what governments do.
I am not impressed that you are impressed with his handling of the situation.
You can’t be upset with the government for not planning, yet also upset with them when they say that they are!
We are in a situation wherein the government is discussing food shortages.
The journalists didn't ask him about the asteroid strike or the volcanic eruption or the rampaging dinosaurs. But about the possible food shortages.
Think about it.
I am thinking about it. I reckon Remainers have, here, their last best chance at halting Brexit, or even reversing it.
If they can get this Food Shortage meme to go viral, to really embed itself in the nation's conscious, then I can see the polls going mad: Remain shooting up to 60-70, Leave dropping to 40-30. These are levels at which the pressure to have a 2nd vote might be irresistible.#
I am tempted by the idea of a 2nd vote, and I am a Leaver.
The trouble for Remoaners is that it is a gorgeous hot summer, and everyone is drunk and happy, and no one cares, apart from us geeks.
I very much doubt there will be food shortages (and I am not an expert do I should know) but the very fact that we are talking about it, as the 5th largest economy in the world, seems to be an extraordinary phenomenon lost on the dimbo Leavers.
Agreed. And if this was chilly, depressing late November, and we were heading hard for No Deal, then I think it would be curtains for Brexit. Polling WOULD shift wildly towards REMAIN, and we'd delay A50 and have a 2nd vote.
But it is the burning heart of a glorious summer and everyone is pissed on Pimms, the idea of starving to death seems fantastical, people are mainly worried the pubs will run out of cold beer this evening.
From a Remaoner's perspective, the timing is wrong, but the potential is there.
It's not such a glorious summer for agriculture. The dry conditions mean that the grass isn't growing, which means that, for example, dairy farmers are having to feed their cattle with winter hay stocks. Some will then have to reduce their herd size in order to survive the winter. I can't see this doing much good for the food situation in the UK.
Why did Russian supermarkets not run out of food when Putin banned food imports from the EU plus USA and Canada and Australia and Norway (fish)?
No idea. Is it relevant? We are heavily reliant on food imports, most of which come through Calais. Suspect the Russians are not.
It is very relevant and if your industry expert did not include what happened in his presentation then he has not done a complete analysis. What does most? mean 51% or 99%. You are a bit of a fact free zone.
I think the claims sound so fantastical that they won't be taken seriously. There is also the danger that the remainers overplay the hand badly, something they have done every single time. It's definitely a poor headline for leave, however, there's a fair chance that it will just generate anger towards politicians and the EU.
I think we can already see Conservatives preparing this last line of defence. Theresa May, in late March, announces "no deal" and we prepare to crash out and the narrative will be:
"The Chequers Deal was the basis for a fair and equitable agreement which would have benefitted both the UK and the EU. However, for their own reasons, the EU regrettably could not see it in these terms and have imposed conditions which no UK Prime Minister could accept as it would diminish our sovereignty. We are therefore, in sorrow, resolved to leave the European Union on 29th March without an agreement.
There will be disruption and dislocation but be assured the Government has adequate and tested plans in place for all contingencies. It is a matter of personal regret the European Union found itself unable to work with the United Kingdom, a trusted friend and partner for so many years but we now go our separate ways"
The Conservative Party, its supporters and its friends in the media will heap opprobrium on Brussels and all things European and perhaps prepare for a patriotic election on May 2nd.
There will of course be no mention of the Government's failures.
Except JRM with the acquiescence of Mrs May altered the Chequers deal last week before the EU did anything.
The reason it was a "secret" conference is because some scientific debates have now become so controversial - e.g. average differences in IQ between racial groups - they can only be discussed clandestinely, like dissenters swapping samizdat literature in Soviet Russia. Otherwise, if you announce your conference, you get 3000 antifascist agitators trying to kill you.
Of course you might believe some science should simply never be discussed. Or worked on. Or even thought about. Fair enough. But then that turns science into theology, doesn't it?
Or alternatively, it's a load of cr@p that'll fail at its first sniff of the scientific process.
This will play well with one of the (essential for victory) Labour voting blocs. British Jobs For British Workers next. I didn't think he had it him. The Will to Power..
After Mrs May is finished alienating 15-20% of her vote this Autumn with total capitulation on Free Movement and the 40Bn Freeby. Labour are going to be very well set.
I think the claims sound so fantastical that they won't be taken seriously. There is also the danger that the remainers overplay the hand badly, something they have done every single time. It's definitely a poor headline for leave, however, there's a fair chance that it will just generate anger towards politicians and the EU.
I think we can already see Conservatives preparing this last line of defence. Theresa May, in late March, announces "no deal" and we prepare to crash out and the narrative will be:
"The Chequers Deal was the basis for a fair and equitable agreement which would have benefitted both the UK and the EU. However, for their own reasons, the EU regrettably could not see it in these terms and have imposed conditions which no UK Prime Minister could accept as it would diminish our sovereignty. We are therefore, in sorrow, resolved to leave the European Union on 29th March without an agreement.
There will be disruption and dislocation but be assured the Government has adequate and tested plans in place for all contingencies. It is a matter of personal regret the European Union found itself unable to work with the United Kingdom, a trusted friend and partner for so many years but we now go our separate ways"
The Conservative Party, its supporters and its friends in the media will heap opprobrium on Brussels and all things European and perhaps prepare for a patriotic election on May 2nd.
There will of course be no mention of the Government's failures.
Except JRM with the acquiescence of Mrs May altered the Chequers deal last week before the EU did anything.
Yes, that was rather galling. Most thought the EU would say no anyway, so why the rush to assure JRM and co mere days after finally setting a line? Bizarre behaviour.
I think the claims sound so fantastical that they won't be taken seriously. There is also the danger that the remainers overplay the hand badly, something they have done every single time. It's definitely a poor headline for leave, however, there's a fair chance that it will just generate anger towards politicians and the EU.
I think we can already see Conservatives preparing this last line of defence. Theresa May, in late March, announces "no deal" and we prepare to crash out and the narrative will be:
"The Chequers Deal was the basis for a fair and equitable agreement which would have benefitted both the UK and the EU. However, for their own reasons, the EU regrettably could not see it in these terms and have imposed conditions which no UK Prime Minister could accept as it would diminish our sovereignty. We are therefore, in sorrow, resolved to leave the European Union on 29th March without an agreement.
There will be disruption and dislocation but be assured the Government has adequate and tested plans in place for all contingencies. It is a matter of personal regret the European Union found itself unable to work with the United Kingdom, a trusted friend and partner for so many years but we now go our separate ways"
The Conservative Party, its supporters and its friends in the media will heap opprobrium on Brussels and all things European and perhaps prepare for a patriotic election on May 2nd.
There will of course be no mention of the Government's failures.
She can not wait until late March. If she does not announce in October after the next EU summit we are going WTO and the agreements for transport, etc then she will be bending over by March. If she announced a WTO brexit in March to be implemented 29th March business would go ape and rightly so. She would have destroyed the Tories argument for competence for many years.
"Greece wildfires: At least 74 dead as blaze 'struck like flamethrower ........................................................... Officials have suggested the current blazes may have been started by arsonists looking to loot abandoned homes.'"
I think the claims sound so fantastical that they won't be taken seriously. There is also the danger that the remainers overplay the hand badly, something they have done every single time. It's definitely a poor headline for leave, however, there's a fair chance that it will just generate anger towards politicians and the EU.
I think we can already see Conservatives preparing this last line of defence. Theresa May, in late March, announces "no deal" and we prepare to crash out and the narrative will be:
"The Chequers Deal was the basis for a fair and equitable agreement which would have benefitted both the UK and the EU. However, for their own reasons, the EU regrettably could not see it in these terms and have imposed conditions which no UK Prime Minister could accept as it would diminish our sovereignty. We are therefore, in sorrow, resolved to leave the European Union on 29th March without an agreement.
There will be disruption and dislocation but be assured the Government has adequate and tested plans in place for all contingencies. It is a matter of personal regret the European Union found itself unable to work with the United Kingdom, a trusted friend and partner for so many years but we now go our separate ways"
The Conservative Party, its supporters and its friends in the media will heap opprobrium on Brussels and all things European and perhaps prepare for a patriotic election on May 2nd.
There will of course be no mention of the Government's failures.
She can not wait until late March. If she does not announce in October after the next EU summit we are going WTO and the agreements for transport, etc then she will be bending over by March. If she announced a WTO brexit in March to be implemented 29th March business would go ape and rightly so. She would have destroyed the Tories argument for competence for many years.
Already done, although that's not entirely down to her given the unmanageable parliament before her, but she hasn't helped it.
The reason it was a "secret" conference is because some scientific debates have now become so controversial - e.g. average differences in IQ between racial groups - they can only be discussed clandestinely, like dissenters swapping samizdat literature in Soviet Russia. Otherwise, if you announce your conference, you get 3000 antifascist agitators trying to kill you.
Of course you might believe some science should simply never be discussed. Or worked on. Or even thought about. Fair enough. But then that turns science into theology, doesn't it?
I'm not going to take the work of Toby Young bessie mate Emil Kirkegaard seriously because he's a crank.
That's not theology, it's reading his work and realising it is shit irrespective of his politics.
Straw man.
I think it's sad that left denies logic. If there is a certain group of people that has above average intelligence then it stands to reason that other groups will have below average intelligence. If the first is true then the second must be. No one denies the truth of the first statement, in fact it is celebrated by many.
The evidence seems to be that East Asian people are more intelligent than the rest of us.
Consumer Advice. Aldi this morning no English Sparkling Water. Tesco this afternoon no English sparkling water, still got the awful french stuff that tastes bad with gammon. Stock up on sparkling water now, it is all brexit's fault and there will be panic buying. Raab to be sacked, Maybot to make a statement to the House, the middle class can not live with out sparkling water (or I can not, voting socialist nutter party now).
I don't believe for a nanosecond this tosh of food shortages - well, some luxury items may be less available but the staples (will we have to end up eating staples?) will be there whatever the short term disruption. The notion of Sainsburys, Tescos or Lidl running out of food on 29/3/19 is laughable.
Quite. The worst that's likely to happen, should the food scares have any traction in eight months' time (and that depends on a news media with the typical attention span of a boiled potato actually keeping on and on and on about it,) is that the run up to the big day will be a bit like the week before Christmas, with lots of big grocery runs being done "just to make sure we've got enough in to last."
And yours truly, stockpiling my favourite loo rolls and a generous supply of confectionery :-)
Seriously, the problem with all these scare stories is the same: most of the credibility of those making them was blown by the forecast apocalypse not happening on 24th June 2016, or at any time thereafter. It makes the doomsayers sound like one of these crazy American religious sects that continuously tries and fails to correctly prophesy the date of the Rapture. And besides, most people aren't listening anyway.
Now that the football's over the main topic of national conversation is the hot weather. Arguments about the UK's relationship with Europe are for the small minority who are really interested. The rest of the population is, I would surmise, in the same position as they've been for the last two years: they either think the vote's been held and expect the Government to get on with it, or they're entirely ignorant of the whole issue and have been all along.
Agreed. And if this was chilly, depressing late November, and we were heading hard for No Deal, then I think it would be curtains for Brexit. Polling WOULD shift wildly towards REMAIN, and we'd delay A50 and have a 2nd vote.
But it is the burning heart of a glorious summer and everyone is pissed on Pimms, the idea of starving to death seems fantastical, people are mainly worried the pubs will run out of cold beer this evening.
From a Remaoner's perspective, the timing is wrong, but the potential is there.
We're going to have over two months of this kind of stuff, in order to 'show we're serious' and force the the EU to consider our 'final offer'. By the end of it, no-one will want No Deal, but no-one will be any keener on Chequers. Then May can have her moment of victory when the EU agree to the final text of the withdrawal agreement, and immediately announce a second referendum between Chequers and Remain, with no risk of a cataclysm no matter what the result. Corbyn will be snookered, the ERG will be routed, and the country will be saved. May will have simultaneously delivered on the result of the 2016 referendum, and binned it, in one fell swoop.
I can see the logic of that for TMay, it makes a lot of sense. But would she have the MPs to vote for a 2nd referendum? At least half her party would vote against. What would Labour do? Most Labour MPs would love a 2nd vote, but Corbyn would be against it, and would surely whip the vote.
Both parties could then split?
I think if she goes for one the only possible, and still unlikely at that, that she could get through woukd be deal or no deal. But plenty on labour and some tories would want remain on there as well.
I'd think Labour could avoid a split, the tories woukd split and that would encourage them to keep it together long enough for a ge after a failed attempt to get a referendum through.
But referendum seems the only way a deal, likely to be watered down more, can get through. So not many viable options.
Agreed. And if this was chilly, depressing late November, and we were heading hard for No Deal, then I think it would be curtains for Brexit. Polling WOULD shift wildly towards REMAIN, and we'd delay A50 and have a 2nd vote.
But it is the burning heart of a glorious summer and everyone is pissed on Pimms, the idea of starving to death seems fantastical, people are mainly worried the pubs will run out of cold beer this evening.
From a Remaoner's perspective, the timing is wrong, but the potential is there.
We're going to have over two months of this kind of stuff, in order to 'show we're serious' and force the the EU to consider our 'final offer'. By the end of it, no-one will want No Deal, but no-one will be any keener on Chequers. Then May can have her moment of victory when the EU agree to the final text of the withdrawal agreement, and immediately announce a second referendum between Chequers and Remain, with no risk of a cataclysm no matter what the result. Corbyn will be snookered, the ERG will be routed, and the country will be saved. May will have simultaneously delivered on the result of the 2016 referendum, and binned it, in one fell swoop.
I can see the logic of that for TMay, it makes a lot of sense. But would she have the MPs to vote for a 2nd referendum? At least half her party would vote against. What would Labour do? Most Labour MPs would love a 2nd vote, but Corbyn would be against it, and would surely whip the vote.
Both parties could then split?
If there's clear public demand for a referendum by that point then it would be brave of any MP to make a stand against it, particularly if the logic of their position was to force a No Deal crisis.
"Greece wildfires: At least 74 dead as blaze 'struck like flamethrower ........................................................... Officials have suggested the current blazes may have been started by arsonists looking to loot abandoned homes.'"
I don't believe for a nanosecond this tosh of food shortages - well, some luxury items may be less available but the staples (will we have to end up eating staples?) will be there whatever the short term disruption. The notion of Sainsburys, Tescos or Lidl running out of food on 29/3/19 is laughable.
Quite. The worst that's likely to happen, should the food scares have any traction in eight months' time (and that depends on a news media with the typical attention span of a boiled potato actually keeping on and on and on about it,) is that the run up to the big day will be a bit like the week before Christmas, with lots of big grocery runs being done "just to make sure we've got enough in to last."
And yours truly, stockpiling my favourite loo rolls and a generous supply of confectionery :-)
Seriously, the problem with all these scare stories is the same: most of the credibility of those making them was blown by the forecast apocalypse not happening on 24th June 2016, or at any time thereafter. It makes the doomsayers sound like one of these crazy American religious sects that continuously tries and fails to correctly prophesy the date of the Rapture. And besides, most people aren't listening anyway.
Now that the football's over the main topic of national conversation is the hot weather. Arguments about the UK's relationship with Europe are for the small minority who are really interested. The rest of the population is, I would surmise, in the same position as they've been for the last two years: they either think the vote's been held and expect the Government to get on with it, or they're entirely ignorant of the whole issue and have been all along.
Yes, but people will have to pay attention at some point, and though the crunch date has been put off as long as possible, people will soon know what is happening and react. Perhaps not in the ways some think, but the people will soon have no choice but to take notice of what options were actually going to get, if any.
The parties are not well prepared for that, though it's easier for Corbyn. And anything could happen as a result.
Agreed. And if this was chilly, depressing late November, and we were heading hard for No Deal, then I think it would be curtains for Brexit. Polling WOULD shift wildly towards REMAIN, and we'd delay A50 and have a 2nd vote.
But it is the burning heart of a glorious summer and everyone is pissed on Pimms, the idea of starving to death seems fantastical, people are mainly worried the pubs will run out of cold beer this evening.
From a Remaoner's perspective, the timing is wrong, but the potential is there.
We're going to have over two months of this kind of stuff, in order to 'show we're serious' and force the the EU to consider our 'final offer'. By the end of it, no-one will want No Deal, but no-one will be any keener on Chequers. Then May can have her moment of victory when the EU agree to the final text of the withdrawal agreement, and immediately announce a second referendum between Chequers and Remain, with no risk of a cataclysm no matter what the result. Corbyn will be snookered, the ERG will be routed, and the country will be saved. May will have simultaneously delivered on the result of the 2016 referendum, and binned it, in one fell swoop.
I can see the logic of that for TMay, it makes a lot of sense. But would she have the MPs to vote for a 2nd referendum? At least half her party would vote against. What would Labour do? Most Labour MPs would love a 2nd vote, but Corbyn would be against it, and would surely whip the vote.
Both parties could then split?
I think if she goes for one the only possible, and still unlikely at that, that she could get through woukd be deal or no deal. But plenty on labour and some tories would want remain on there as well.
I'd think Labour could avoid a split, the tories woukd split and that would encourage them to keep it together long enough for a ge after a failed attempt to get a referendum through.
But referendum seems the only way a deal, likely to be watered down more, can get through. So not many viable options.
Hence no deal.
Some polling on a “Noel Edmonds” referendum would be useful. I fear it would be rather too close to risk actually holding it, lest the people vote to give the government a bloody nose again. It’s probably somewhere between 60/40 and 65/35 now, in favour of the Chequers deal over no deal, on a forced question.
Incidentally, this is a rather fine and shocking piece by Toby Young (an old acquaintance of mine).
I was aware that he was forced to step down from the QAUNGO role, because of the monstering he got on Twitter and elsewhere.
I was unaware that as a consequence he lost ALL his positions, and his entire career was ruined, overnight. Just astonishing. And sobering. Whether you are on the left OR the right, these lynchings are horrible. They need to STOP.
That’s a very sad, but wonderfully well written and eloquent piece.
Hopefully the febrile online lynch mob will be tamed eventually, but it’s hard to see how it doesn’t get worse before it gets better. The question is what will it take for them to deflect their attention towards actual abusers, and away from satirical and self-deprecating writers?
It is a lynch mob, but looking at that DM front page and some of the tweets, and as Young himself accepts, I am not 100% sure I would want someone who is capable of making some of those comments in a position of influence in education.
I would repeat some of those tweets by way of illustration but I simply cannot as they are too offensive even to repeat to make a point.
A few dodgy Tweets from years ago is insignificant, when compared to his more recent several years’ experience running schools and an educational charity.
And, you know, the current attending of secret eugenics conferences and friendlyness to outrageous crank 'scientidic' racists who attend the conference with him.
It wasn't the old twatishness that made him step down, it was the recent attendance of the "here's totally scientific reasons why black people are stupid" conferences that did for him.
It wasn't "secret" as I recall ... a regular conference announced on the internet, and Young attending as a reporter not a participant.
(IMO) The twitter mob such as Paul Mason (and Dawn Butler on BBCQT) were running with a demonisation campaign, with quite a lot of it simply untrue.
And unfortunately Theresa May and similar have long had a glass jaw in such circumstances.
Consumer Advice. Aldi this morning no English Sparkling Water. Tesco this afternoon no English sparkling water, still got the awful french stuff that tastes bad with gammon. Stock up on sparkling water now, it is all brexit's fault and there will be panic buying. Raab to be sacked, Maybot to make a statement to the House, the middle class can not live with out sparkling water (or I can not, voting socialist nutter party now).
Buy a Sodastream! far more convenient and enviromentally sound. Get busy with the fizzy!
If we are going back to the Seventies, with shortages and National Front marches, we ought to have appropriate refreshments.
The reason it was a "secret" conference is because some scientific debates have now become so controversial - e.g. average differences in IQ between racial groups - they can only be discussed clandestinely, like dissenters swapping samizdat literature in Soviet Russia. Otherwise, if you announce your conference, you get 3000 antifascist agitators trying to kill you.
Of course you might believe some science should simply never be discussed. Or worked on. Or even thought about. Fair enough. But then that turns science into theology, doesn't it?
Or alternatively, it's a load of cr@p that'll fail at its first sniff of the scientific process.
Jesus. It really doesn't. This stuff is scientific fact. You can dismiss IQ tests as being pointless or worthless (though they are essentially the basis of SATs in the USA, for a start) but they do persistently throw up data which is troubling, yet provably correct.
I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, however, as it always ends up sad and messy. The evening is too nice
One final thought: the reason subjects like IQ, race, genetics, eugenics, etc, attract cranks (and they do) is that any sensible scientist with a career to pursue avoids them like the plague. Because is you are not very very very careful (cf Toby Young esq) you can be easily tarred by association and your career then ends.
The ghettoisation of this branch of science is a self fulfilling prophecy. Ghettoes get closed off, and starve, and all the inhabitants look like mad skeletons.
"This stuff is scientific fact."
Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it 'scientific fact'.
I don't believe for a nanosecond this tosh of food shortages - well, some luxury items may be less available but the staples (will we have to end up eating staples?) will be there whatever the short term disruption. The notion of Sainsburys, Tescos or Lidl running out of food on 29/3/19 is laughable.
Quite. The worst that's likely to happen, should the food scares have any traction in eight months' time (and that depends on a news media with the typical attention span of a boiled potato actually keeping on and on and on about it,) is that the run up to the big day will be a bit like the week before Christmas, with lots of big grocery runs being done "just to make sure we've got enough in to last."
And yours truly, stockpiling my favourite loo rolls and a generous supply of confectionery :-)
Seriously, the problem with all these scare stories is the same: most of the credibility of those making them was blown by the forecast apocalypse not happening on 24th June 2016, or at any time thereafter. It makes the doomsayers sound like one of these crazy American religious sects that continuously tries and fails to correctly prophesy the date of the Rapture. And besides, most people aren't listening anyway.
Now that the football's over the main topic of national conversation is the hot weather. Arguments about the UK's relationship with Europe are for the small minority who are really interested. The rest of the population is, I would surmise, in the same position as they've been for the last two years: they either think the vote's been held and expect the Government to get on with it, or they're entirely ignorant of the whole issue and have been all along.
Yes, but people will have to pay attention at some point, and though the crunch date has been put off as long as possible, people will soon know what is happening and react. Perhaps not in the ways some think, but the people will soon have no choice but to take notice of what options were actually going to get, if any.
The parties are not well prepared for that, though it's easier for Corbyn. And anything could happen as a result.
Possibly. It depends what the outcome is, and I maintain the opinion that it'll either be EEA+CU or No Deal. The latter will either bury Europe as an issue or bury the Government, depending on how well or badly it proceeds; my fear about the former is that it'll both allow a betrayal legend to be created and cause the Tory party to collapse, and we'll end up with a very bad socialist Government gradually having its support chewed away by the far Right. But only time will tell, of course.
The reason it was a "secret" conference is because some scientific debates have now become so controversial - e.g. average differences in IQ between racial groups - they can only be discussed clandestinely, like dissenters swapping samizdat literature in Soviet Russia. Otherwise, if you announce your conference, you get 3000 antifascist agitators trying to kill you.
Of course you might believe some science should simply never be discussed. Or worked on. Or even thought about. Fair enough. But then that turns science into theology, doesn't it?
Or alternatively, it's a load of cr@p that'll fail at its first sniff of the scientific process.
Jesus. It really doesn't. This stuff is scientific fact. You can dismiss IQ tests as being pointless or worthless (though they are essentially the basis of SATs in the USA, for a start) but they do persistently throw up data which is troubling, yet provably correct.
I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, however, as it always ends up sad and messy. The evening is too nice
One final thought: the reason subjects like IQ, race, genetics, eugenics, etc, attract cranks (and they do) is that any sensible scientist with a career to pursue avoids them like the plague. Because is you are not very very very careful (cf Toby Young esq) you can be easily tarred by association and your career then ends.
The ghettoisation of this branch of science is a self fulfilling prophecy. Ghettoes get closed off, and starve, and all the inhabitants look like mad skeletons.
"This stuff is scientific fact."
Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it 'scientific fact'.
Do you believe that there are groups of people who are smarter than average? Y/N
Do you believe that there are groups of people who are smarter than average? Y/N
Define 'groups'. Define 'smarter'.
This sort of thing is filled with difficulties and problems: from the tests themselves and what they are testing, through various biases, to whether any differences found are due to external factors, cultural biases or intrinsic biological traits within a group. Then there are some of the claims made on the basis of the research.
As a similar example, look at the debates on here about whether or not grammar schools improve results. People argue about this both ways, using data to back up their claims. That is in a much easier area, (*) but still people cannot agree.
(*) As it happens, I think they do, if marginally.
Easier to get hold of than firearms, easier to use than a carving knife, leaves victims in agony and probably disfigured for life, and unlikely actually to kill (so you can get off with a comparatively lenient sentence if caught.) It's an ideal weapon for revenge seekers and armed street robbery alike.
The only thing liable to significantly deter these crimes is to make them punishable by life imprisonment. It would be easy enough to do. If we wasted less resources on locking lots of people up for short terms then plenty of prison spaces would be freed up in which to warehouse these scumbags.
Some polling on a “Noel Edmonds” referendum would be useful. I fear it would be rather too close to risk actually holding it, lest the people vote to give the government a bloody nose again. It’s probably somewhere between 60/40 and 65/35 now, in favour of the Chequers deal over no deal, on a forced question.
The problem with a new referendum remains exactly what it has always been - the other side of the answer. Short of a tertiary or trinary option, what is the "negative" - crashing out without a deal or remaining in the EU (and if the latter, on what terms ?).
A binary option between Leaving Without A Deal and Remaining in the EU makes sense but that's not what would be on offer if May comes back with something however unpalatable.
Well personally I think it's a positive that the Gov't will ensure adequate food supply in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Quite. It’s somewhat disingenuous to simultaneously have a go at government for not planning, and having a go at them for making plans.
Are you fucking kidding me?
The government has manoeuvred itself into a position whereby it is discussing food fucking shortages. And this is praiseworthy?
The minister is replying to journalists who think that asking questions about food shortages will generate good headlines.
There’s thousands of civil servants who spend their days planning for various eventualities, and there always have been. It’s what governments do.
I am not impressed that you are impressed with his handling of the situation.
You can’t be upset with the government for not planning, yet also upset with them when they say that they are!
This is now getting ridiculous, with people going as far as to suggest that the French are going to send troops to Calais to blockade the port. People are losing their collective minds here. Brexit isn’t war.
But the very reason the government has been reluctant to do any planning is that they knew, from the beginning, that it would expose the lies of the Leave campaign that leaving the EU would be a stroll in the park.
"Can your IQ score change over time? Absolutely. "IQ scores," explains Cornell University's Stephen Ceci, "can change quite dramatically as a result of changes in family environment (Clarke, 1976; Svendsen, 1982), work environment (Kohn and Schooler, 1978), historical environment (Flynn, 1987), styles of parenting (Baumrind, 1967; Dornbusch, 1987), and, most especially, shifts in level of schooling."[v]"
Well personally I think it's a positive that the Gov't will ensure adequate food supply in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Quite. It’s somewhat disingenuous to simultaneously have a go at government for not planning, and having a go at them for making plans.
Are you fucking kidding me?
The government has manoeuvred itself into a position whereby it is discussing food fucking shortages. And this is praiseworthy?
The minister is replying to journalists who think that asking questions about food shortages will generate good headlines.
There’s thousands of civil servants who spend their days planning for various eventualities, and there always have been. It’s what governments do.
I am not impressed that you are impressed with his handling of the situation.
You can’t be upset with the government for not planning, yet also upset with them when they say that they are!
This is now getting ridiculous, with people going as far as to suggest that the French are going to send troops to Calais to blockade the port. People are losing their collective minds here. Brexit isn’t war.
But the very reason the government has been reluctant to do any planning is that they knew, from the beginning, that it would expose the lies of the Leave campaign that leaving the EU would be a stroll in the park.
They have done planning, they are just not telling anybody what they have done. Steve Baker was Minster for No Deal Planning. The fact he has said nothing bad about the planning is to me, indicative of how much they have done.
"Can your IQ score change over time? Absolutely. "IQ scores," explains Cornell University's Stephen Ceci, "can change quite dramatically as a result of changes in family environment (Clarke, 1976; Svendsen, 1982), work environment (Kohn and Schooler, 1978), historical environment (Flynn, 1987), styles of parenting (Baumrind, 1967; Dornbusch, 1987), and, most especially, shifts in level of schooling."[v]"
"Can your IQ score change over time? Absolutely. "IQ scores," explains Cornell University's Stephen Ceci, "can change quite dramatically as a result of changes in family environment (Clarke, 1976; Svendsen, 1982), work environment (Kohn and Schooler, 1978), historical environment (Flynn, 1987), styles of parenting (Baumrind, 1967; Dornbusch, 1987), and, most especially, shifts in level of schooling."[v]"
Arriving at middle age after a life of overindulgence is unlikely to have done much for IQ, I am thinking. If only there were a case study we could examine that was close to hand.
The reason it was a "secret" conference is because some scientific debates have now become so controversial - e.g. average differences in IQ between racial groups - they can only be discussed clandestinely, like dissenters swapping samizdat literature in Soviet Russia. Otherwise, if you announce your conference, you get 3000 antifascist agitators trying to kill you.
Of course you might believe some science should simply never be discussed. Or worked on. Or even thought about. Fair enough. But then that turns science into theology, doesn't it?
I'm not going to take the work of Toby Young bessie mate Emil Kirkegaard seriously because he's a crank.
That's not theology, it's reading his work and realising it is shit irrespective of his politics.
Straw man.
Which of Kirkegaard's papers do you find compelling then?
I didn't even refer to him, I didn't mention him, I don't even know who he is. He is the strawest of straw men.
See my comment. I was talking about the reasons the conference was secret. It is because some scientific facts, actual provable facts, have become so controversial they have to be discussed behind closed doors.
Some would prefer they were not discussed at all, and whole areas of science were shut down. That is their opinion. And you might be one of them, you might not - that was my point and my query.
Korlegaard is the kind of crank that attends those kinds of cpnference
Do you believe that there are groups of people who are smarter than average? Y/N
Define 'groups'. Define 'smarter'.
This sort of thing is filled with difficulties and problems: from the tests themselves and what they are testing, through various biases, to whether any differences found are due to external factors, cultural biases or intrinsic biological traits within a group. Then there are some of the claims made on the basis of the research.
As a similar example, look at the debates on here about whether or not grammar schools improve results. People argue about this both ways, using data to back up their claims. That is in a much easier area, (*) but still people cannot agree.
(*) As it happens, I think they do, if marginally.
Basically I've yet to see one of these 'scientific facts' that is still standing after a rigorous application of environmental factors.
Consumer Advice. Aldi this morning no English Sparkling Water. Tesco this afternoon no English sparkling water, still got the awful french stuff that tastes bad with gammon. Stock up on sparkling water now, it is all brexit's fault and there will be panic buying. Raab to be sacked, Maybot to make a statement to the House, the middle class can not live with out sparkling water (or I can not, voting socialist nutter party now).
Buy a Sodastream! far more convenient and enviromentally sound. Get busy with the fizzy!
If we are going back to the Seventies, with shortages and National Front marches, we ought to have appropriate refreshments.
Oh god. After The Bell Curve was published, the American Psychological Association (foremost in its field in the world), put together a task force to find out if the controversial assertions, in one chapter, had any validity. Here is what they concluded:
"The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation [15 points], although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."
And many more such articles. It is far from settled.
To make it clear: I have absolutely no problem with these sorts of questions being discussed, and think that shouting down legitimate discussion is stupid. But that does not mean the data, process or the conclusions made from it cannot be robustly challenged.
"Can your IQ score change over time? Absolutely. "IQ scores," explains Cornell University's Stephen Ceci, "can change quite dramatically as a result of changes in family environment (Clarke, 1976; Svendsen, 1982), work environment (Kohn and Schooler, 1978), historical environment (Flynn, 1987), styles of parenting (Baumrind, 1967; Dornbusch, 1987), and, most especially, shifts in level of schooling."[v]"
I think it's the societal impact of Social Media, Smartphones and Love Island. After enough years of this guff, the kids will only be clever enough to pick strawberries. So that will solve Brexit.
"Can your IQ score change over time? Absolutely. "IQ scores," explains Cornell University's Stephen Ceci, "can change quite dramatically as a result of changes in family environment (Clarke, 1976; Svendsen, 1982), work environment (Kohn and Schooler, 1978), historical environment (Flynn, 1987), styles of parenting (Baumrind, 1967; Dornbusch, 1987), and, most especially, shifts in level of schooling."[v]"
Arriving at middle age after a life of overindulgence is unlikely to have done much for IQ, I am thinking. If only there were a case study we could examine that was close to hand.
Ahem. See my prior comment.
If you're in middle age, like me, you are likely to have the highest IQ man has known. IQs rose for a century until the 60s, and then began to fall with children born thereafter.
I mean, it's pretty fucking obvious when you look at PB.
Thanks for volunteering. There's a normal distribution, at any age, and for every person above the mean there will be someone propping up the distribution from the other side.
After Raab's comments I thought we might going for the North Korea Brexit. Catching up with PB I see we're now onto the Mad Max Brexit. I can swing the motor- or quadbike, might be on dodgy ground with the mohican and am definitely not going to permitted the catamite. Pity, I look good in a facemask.
"Can your IQ score change over time? Absolutely. "IQ scores," explains Cornell University's Stephen Ceci, "can change quite dramatically as a result of changes in family environment (Clarke, 1976; Svendsen, 1982), work environment (Kohn and Schooler, 1978), historical environment (Flynn, 1987), styles of parenting (Baumrind, 1967; Dornbusch, 1987), and, most especially, shifts in level of schooling."[v]"
Well personally I think it's a positive that the Gov't will ensure adequate food supply in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Quite. It’s somewhat disingenuous to simultaneously have a go at government for not planning, and having a go at them for making plans.
Are you fucking kidding me?
The government has manoeuvred itself into a position whereby it is discussing food fucking shortages. And this is praiseworthy?
The minister is replying to journalists who think that asking questions about food shortages will generate good headlines.
There’s thousands of civil servants who spend their days planning for various eventualities, and there always have been. It’s what governments do.
I am not impressed that you are impressed with his handling of the situation.
You can’t be upset with the government for not planning, yet also upset with them when they say that they are!
This is now getting ridiculous, with people going as far as to suggest that the French are going to send troops to Calais to blockade the port. People are losing their collective minds here. Brexit isn’t war.
But the very reason the government has been reluctant to do any planning is that they knew, from the beginning, that it would expose the lies of the Leave campaign that leaving the EU would be a stroll in the park.
They have done planning, they are just not telling anybody what they have done. Steve Baker was Minster for No Deal Planning. The fact he has said nothing bad about the planning is to me, indicative of how much they have done.
Well if they have been planning they have certainly been very quiet about it. And they haven't involved those whose cooperation they would need. I work for a medium sized organisation in London and and the number of government requests for information and advice about no deal planning we have received is ... none.
Oh god. After The Bell Curve was published, the American Psychological Association (foremost in its field in the world), put together a task force to find out if the controversial assertions, in one chapter, had any validity. Here is what they concluded:
"The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation [15 points], although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."
And many more such articles. It is far from settled.
To make it clear: I have absolutely no problem with these sorts of questions being discussed, and think that shouting down legitimate discussion is stupid. But that does not mean the data, process or the conclusions made from it cannot be robustly challenged.
Vox? Really? VOX???? haha
That's like quoting the Canary, or Stormfront.
Enuff. I said I didn't want to argue about this, and I don't. It's an unhappy subject which understandably sends people a bit bonkers. You clearly have your dogmatic beliefs, and fair enough, good luck to you.
I shall now leave the forum and go to the gym, lowering PB's collective IQ by 3.8947 points.
Later, gentlemen.
LOL. The other day you said use Twitter to try to get 'facts' about something controversial ...
I don't have dogmatic beliefs about this; it's just that your claims don't pass the sniff test. But if were going down this line, I'd be interested in why your 'dogmatic beliefs' have caused you to anchor onto this research so thoroughly.
"Can your IQ score change over time? Absolutely. "IQ scores," explains Cornell University's Stephen Ceci, "can change quite dramatically as a result of changes in family environment (Clarke, 1976; Svendsen, 1982), work environment (Kohn and Schooler, 1978), historical environment (Flynn, 1987), styles of parenting (Baumrind, 1967; Dornbusch, 1987), and, most especially, shifts in level of schooling."[v]"
Arriving at middle age after a life of overindulgence is unlikely to have done much for IQ, I am thinking. If only there were a case study we could examine that was close to hand.
Ahem. See my prior comment.
If you're in middle age, like me, you are likely to have the highest IQ man has known. IQs rose for a century until the 60s, and then began to fall with children born thereafter.
I mean, it's pretty fucking obvious when you look at PB.
Hey! As a child of the 80s I resemble that remark.
Well personally I think it's a positive that the Gov't will ensure adequate food supply in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Quite. It’s somewhat disingenuous to simultaneously have a go at government for not planning, and having a go at them for making plans.
Are you fucking kidding me?
The government has manoeuvred itself into a position whereby it is discussing food fucking shortages. And this is praiseworthy?
The minister is replying to journalists who think that asking questions about food shortages will generate good headlines.
There’s thousands of civil servants who spend their days planning for various eventualities, and there always have been. It’s what governments do.
I am not impressed that you are impressed with his handling of the situation.
You can’t be upset with the government for not planning, yet also upset with them when they say that they are!
We are in a situation wherein the government is discussing food shortages.
The journalists didn't ask him about the asteroid strike or the volcanic eruption or the rampaging dinosaurs. But about the possible food shortages.
Think about it.
Yeah, it’s silly season and a bunch of Remainer hacks are walking themselves into a stupor at the thought that leaving the EU might actually be the end of civilisation as we know it.
More worryingly, they’re risking the equivalent of a bank run on food by bugging up problems to the point where they could become a self fulfilling prophecy. Journalism at its most irresponsible.
Getting the excuses in early is becoming something of a leaver specialist subject. The food shortages weren't caused by Brexit they were caused by the liberal media elite!
Some senior Leavers are currently blaming a Remain conspiracy for an economic slowdown. They’re quite capable of blaming food shortages on Remainian kulaks.
I have just started reading Anne Applebaum's book "Red Famine" on the Ukrainian famine. The early chapters are very interesting on the relationship between Ukraine and Russia and how the former was viewed by both the Tsarist Empire and the Bolsheviks as really part of Russia and not a separate nation at all. It's very interesting historical context to what has been happening more recently between Ukraine and Putin's Russia.
Well personally I think it's a positive that the Gov't will ensure adequate food supply in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Quite. It’s somewhat disingenuous to simultaneously have a go at government for not planning, and having a go at them for making plans.
Are you fucking kidding me?
The government has manoeuvred itself into a position whereby it is discussing food fucking shortages. And this is praiseworthy?
The minister is replying to journalists who think that asking questions about food shortages will generate good headlines.
There’s thousands of civil servants who spend their days planning for various eventualities, and there always have been. It’s what governments do.
I am not impressed that you are impressed with his handling of the situation.
You can’t be upset with the government for not planning, yet also upset with them when they say that they are!
We are in a situation wherein the government is discussing food shortages.
The journalists didn't ask him about the asteroid strike or the volcanic eruption or the rampaging dinosaurs. But about the possible food shortages.
Think about it.
Yeah, it’s silly season and a bunch of Remainer hacks are walking themselves into a stupor at the thought that leaving the EU might actually be the end of civilisation as we know it.
More worryingly, they’re risking the equivalent of a bank run on food by bugging up problems to the point where they could become a self fulfilling prophecy. Journalism at its most irresponsible.
Getting the excuses in early is becoming something of a leaver specialist subject. The food shortages weren't caused by Brexit they were caused by the liberal media elite!
Some senior Leavers are currently blaming a Remain conspiracy for an economic slowdown. They’re quite capable of blaming food shortages on Remainian kulaks.
I have just started reading Anne Applebaum's book "Red Famine" on the Ukrainian famine. The early chapters are very interesting on the relationship between Ukraine and Russia and how the former was viewed by both the Tsarist Empire and the Bolsheviks as really part of Russia and not a separate nation at all. It's very interesting historical context to what has been happening more recently between Ukraine and Putin's Russia.
Tim Snyder's new book has some stuff on this as well.
Consumer Advice. Aldi this morning no English Sparkling Water. Tesco this afternoon no English sparkling water, still got the awful french stuff that tastes bad with gammon. Stock up on sparkling water now, it is all brexit's fault and there will be panic buying. Raab to be sacked, Maybot to make a statement to the House, the middle class can not live with out sparkling water (or I can not, voting socialist nutter party now).
Buy a Sodastream! far more convenient and enviromentally sound. Get busy with the fizzy!
If we are going back to the Seventies, with shortages and National Front marches, we ought to have appropriate refreshments.
The APA ruled out environmental factors as a sole explanation for the IQ gap, in their Bell Curve task force. That's the APA - you know, places like Yale, Cornell, Harvard - not, er, you.
"The APA journal that published the statement, American Psychologist, subsequently published eleven critical responses in January 1997."
Well personally I think it's a positive that the Gov't will ensure adequate food supply in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Quite. It’s somewhat disingenuous to simultaneously have a go at government for not planning, and having a go at them for making plans.
Are you fucking kidding me?
The government has manoeuvred itself into a position whereby it is discussing food fucking shortages. And this is praiseworthy?
The minister is replying to journalists who think that asking questions about food shortages will generate good headlines.
There’s thousands of civil servants who spend their days planning for various eventualities, and there always have been. It’s what governments do.
I am not impressed that you are impressed with his handling of the situation.
You can’t be upset with the government for not planning, yet also upset with them when they say that they are!
We are in a situation wherein the government is discussing food shortages.
The
Think about it.
Yeah, it’s silly season and a bunch of know it.
More worryingly, they’re risking the equivalent of a bank most irresponsible.
Getting the excuses in early is becoming something of a leaver specialist subject. The food shortages weren't !
Some senior Leavers are currently blaming a kulaks.
I have just started reading Anne Applebaum's book "Red Famine" on the Ukrainian famine. The early chapters are very interesting on the relationship between Ukraine and Russia and how the former was viewed by both the Tsarist Empire and the Bolsheviks as really part of Russia and not a separate nation at all. It's very interesting historical context to what has been happening more recently between Ukraine and Putin's Russia.
After reading The Court of the Red Tsar, what strikes me is that if these people had not been prolific serial killers, you'd think they were pathetic. They stuffed their homes with looted art, they gorged themselves on food and drink till they threw up; in late middle age, they still acted like frat boys, pelting each other with food, and lighting each other's farts. I used to think communist leaders were fanatical, but personally austere, but they were the same bunch of perverts and gangsters that led the Nazi Party.
I have just started reading Anne Applebaum's book "Red Famine" on the Ukrainian famine. The early chapters are very interesting on the relationship between Ukraine and Russia and how the former was viewed by both the Tsarist Empire and the Bolsheviks as really part of Russia and not a separate nation at all. It's very interesting historical context to what has been happening more recently between Ukraine and Putin's Russia.
The Holodomor, like the Armenian Genocide, demands much more publicity. It's a shame that it often descends to an argument over numbers instead of contempt for those who, through deliberate acts, policy effects or stupidity (*), caused it.
Lol. You didn’t read the Vox article that you yourself linked to, did you?
The article where it says, and I quote, “we accept AS FACTS... that there is a difference between black and white IQ scores”
Their words. “WE ACCEPT AS FACTS”. Which was precisely what you were arguing against. Nicely done. I estimate your age to be 41 and, therefore, taking the reverse Flynn into consideration, your IQ should be about 81? Am I close? I’m close, aren’t I?
I did, and have in the past. Now read more of it, and other articles.
And do so with an open mind.
So tell me, why are you quite so invested in this particular bit of research?
BTW, it's also funny that you rubbish Vox, then edit your post to use something they say as authoritative.
I have just started reading Anne Applebaum's book "Red Famine" on the Ukrainian famine. The early chapters are very interesting on the relationship between Ukraine and Russia and how the former was viewed by both the Tsarist Empire and the Bolsheviks as really part of Russia and not a separate nation at all. It's very interesting historical context to what has been happening more recently between Ukraine and Putin's Russia.
The Holodomor, like the Armenian Genocide, demands much more publicity. It's a shame that it often descends to an argument over numbers instead of contempt for those who, through deliberate acts, policy effects or stupidity (*), caused it.
Do you think it's worth reading?
(*) For the record, I believe the former.
Based on what I've read so far, yes. I've read her previous two books - Gulag and on the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe.
It was quite clear - certainly based on what I've read - that it was a deliberate act. What I've learnt though, which I didn't know beforehand, was that there was an earlier famine in 1921 which the Russians did not conceal and where they sought and obtained help from the outside, including US charities. The cause was the same: seizing of grain coupled with poor weather leading to poor harvests. But Lenin was still in charge at this point.
Timothy Snyder's books are very good too: Borderlands especially. But a grim read.
Another death knell for a deal though - those who woukd be needed to back it as better than a crash out are focusing or remaining instead. All or Nothing.
There have been stories about child marriages and about how the authorities in Sweden and Germany deal with migrants arriving with children already "married" for a number of years now.
Why this isn't treated as child abuse beats me. Whatever may be acceptable in Syria or wherever surely shouldn't be acceptable here, no matter what the child's culture or how "diverse" her background is.
I have just started reading Anne Applebaum's book "Red Famine" on the Ukrainian famine. The early chapters are very interesting on the relationship between Ukraine and Russia and how the former was viewed by both the Tsarist Empire and the Bolsheviks as really part of Russia and not a separate nation at all. It's very interesting historical context to what has been happening more recently between Ukraine and Putin's Russia.
The Holodomor, like the Armenian Genocide, demands much more publicity. It's a shame that it often descends to an argument over numbers instead of contempt for those who, through deliberate acts, policy effects or stupidity (*), caused it.
Do you think it's worth reading?
(*) For the record, I believe the former.
Based on what I've read so far, yes. I've read her previous two books - Gulag and on the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe.
It was quite clear - certainly based on what I've read - that it was a deliberate act. What I've learnt though, which I didn't know beforehand, was that there was an earlier famine in 1921 which the Russians did not conceal and where they sought and obtained help from the outside, including US charities. The cause was the same: seizing of grain coupled with poor weather leading to poor harvests. But Lenin was still in charge at this point.
Timothy Snyder's books are very good too: Borderlands especially. But a grim read.
Thanks. One final question: is it Kindle friendly? (I.e.not too many graphics)
Lol. You didn’t read the Vox article that you yourself linked to, did you?
The article where it says, and I quote, “we accept AS FACTS... that there is a difference between black and white IQ scores”
Their words. “WE ACCEPT AS FACTS”. Which was precisely what you were arguing against. Nicely done. I estimate your age to be 41 and, therefore, taking the reverse Flynn into consideration, your IQ should be about 81? Am I close? I’m close, aren’t I?
I did, and have in the past. Now read more of it, and other articles.
And do so with an open mind.
So tell me, why are you quite so invested in this particular bit of research?
BTW, it's also funny that you rubbish Vox, then edit your post to use something they say as authoritative.
Indeed.
The truth is I used to be interested in this subject, simply because the facts were so uncomfortable for lefties. And it was so easy to wind them up, and make them say foolish things. That’s why I know so much about it - I’ve read all the books, from Gould to Jensen.
I now regard my prior attitude as rather wanky, and crass. So I tend to avoid the subject altogether.
Indeed I suggest we call a truce tonight, and talk about something else? Tho not Brexit. God help us.
Lol. You didn’t read the Vox article that you yourself linked to, did you?
The article where it says, and I quote, “we accept AS FACTS... that there is a difference between black and white IQ scores”
Their words. “WE ACCEPT AS FACTS”. Which was precisely what you were arguing against. Nicely done. I estimate your age to be 41 and, therefore, taking the reverse Flynn into consideration, your IQ should be about 81? Am I close? I’m close, aren’t I?
I did, and have in the past. Now read more of it, and other articles.
And do so with an open mind.
So tell me, why are you quite so invested in this particular bit of research?
BTW, it's also funny that you rubbish Vox, then edit your post to use something they say as authoritative.
Indeed.
The truth is I used to be interested in this subject, simply because the facts were so uncomfortable for lefties. And it was so easy to wind them up, and make them say foolish things. That’s why I know so much about it - I’ve read all the books, from Gould to Jensen.
I now regard my prior attitude as rather wanky, and crass. So I tend to avoid the subject altogether.
Indeed I suggest we call a truce tonight, and talk about something else? Tho not Brexit. God help us.
Well you can all read my profile on Global Investigations Review (1 of the 100 Top Women in Investigations Globally - how about that for a bit of @SeanT boasting, eh?!) instead and talk about what a wise and wonderful person I am.
There have been stories about child marriages and about how the authorities in Sweden and Germany deal with migrants arriving with children already "married" for a number of years now.
Why this isn't treated as child abuse beats me. Whatever may be acceptable in Syria or wherever surely shouldn't be acceptable here, no matter what the child's culture or how "diverse" her background is.
Indeed. Although child marriage is surprisingly common and tolerated in the USA also. And not amongst Muslims. It seems to go hand in hand with religious delusions.
There have been stories about child marriages and about how the authorities in Sweden and Germany deal with migrants arriving with children already "married" for a number of years now.
Why this isn't treated as child abuse beats me. Whatever may be acceptable in Syria or wherever surely shouldn't be acceptable here, no matter what the child's culture or how "diverse" her background is.
Indeed. Although child marriage is surprisingly common and tolerated in the USA also. And not amongst Muslims. It seems to go hand in hand with religious delusions.
Bonkers. How can - in a so-called Christian marriage - there be genuine consent from a child?
I have just started reading Anne Applebaum's book "Red Famine" on the Ukrainian famine. The early chapters are very interesting on the relationship between Ukraine and Russia and how the former was viewed by both the Tsarist Empire and the Bolsheviks as really part of Russia and not a separate nation at all. It's very interesting historical context to what has been happening more recently between Ukraine and Putin's Russia.
The Holodomor, like the Armenian Genocide, demands much more publicity. It's a shame that it often descends to an argument over numbers instead of contempt for those who, through deliberate acts, policy effects or stupidity (*), caused it.
Do you think it's worth reading?
(*) For the record, I believe the former.
Based on what I've read so far, yes. I've read her previous two books - Gulag and on the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe.
It was quite clear - certainly based on what I've read - that it was a deliberate act. What I've learnt though, which I didn't know beforehand, was that there was an earlier famine in 1921 which the Russians did not conceal and where they sought and obtained help from the outside, including US charities. The cause was the same: seizing of grain coupled with poor weather leading to poor harvests. But Lenin was still in charge at this point.
Timothy Snyder's books are very good too: Borderlands especially. But a grim read.
Thanks. One final question: is it Kindle friendly? (I.e.not too many graphics)
No idea, I'm afraid. There are some maps at the start and some harrowing photos. I've never used Kindle. I'm one for old-fashioned books with paper. Sorry.
I find discussing IQ a bit like discussing house prices, but considerably less precise.
IQ fascinats me, perhaps because my IQ isn't high enough to understand it's subtlety. I will say (and have said in the past) this: in my industry, I have noticed a direct inverse correlation between academic achievement and capability of living in the world. In other words, the more highly qualified you are, the worse you are at coping with everyday life.
The few professors I know are archetypally scatter-brained. The doctors cannot light the correct end of a candle. Those with Masters hit themselves in the face with doors. Those with degrees focus on one area and forget to pay their car tax or council tax.
(As you might have guessed, I don't have a degree.)
There have been stories about child marriages and about how the authorities in Sweden and Germany deal with migrants arriving with children already "married" for a number of years now.
Why this isn't treated as child abuse beats me. Whatever may be acceptable in Syria or wherever surely shouldn't be acceptable here, no matter what the child's culture or how "diverse" her background is.
Indeed. Although child marriage is surprisingly common and tolerated in the USA also. And not amongst Muslims. It seems to go hand in hand with religious delusions.
Bonkers. How can - in a so-called Christian marriage - there be genuine consent from a child?
More than 200,000 children married in US over the last 15 years
Girls as young as 10 were among the minors who wedded under legal loopholes
In May [2017] the high-profile Republican governor for New Jersey declined to sign into law a measure that would have made his state the first to ban child marriage without exception. Chris Christie claimed it would conflict with religious customs.
There have been stories about child marriages and about how the authorities in Sweden and Germany deal with migrants arriving with children already "married" for a number of years now.
Why this isn't treated as child abuse beats me. Whatever may be acceptable in Syria or wherever surely shouldn't be acceptable here, no matter what the child's culture or how "diverse" her background is.
Indeed. Although child marriage is surprisingly common and tolerated in the USA also. And not amongst Muslims. It seems to go hand in hand with religious delusions.
Bonkers. How can - in a so-called Christian marriage - there be genuine consent from a child?
No idea. Christian fundamentalism in the USA seems entirely alien to me.
Lol. You didn’t read the Vox article that you yourself linked to, did you?
The article where it says, and I quote, “we accept AS FACTS... that there is a difference between black and white IQ scores”
Their words. “WE ACCEPT AS FACTS”. Which was precisely what you were arguing against. Nicely done. I estimate your age to be 41 and, therefore, taking the reverse Flynn into consideration, your IQ should be about 81? Am I close? I’m close, aren’t I?
I did, and have in the past. Now read more of it, and other articles.
And do so with an open mind.
So tell me, why are you quite so invested in this particular bit of research?
BTW, it's also funny that you rubbish Vox, then edit your post to use something they say as authoritative.
Indeed.
The truth is I used to be interested in this subject, simply because the facts were so uncomfortable for lefties. And it was so easy to wind them up, and make them say foolish things. That’s why I know so much about it - I’ve read all the books, from Gould to Jensen.
I now regard my prior attitude as rather wanky, and crass. So I tend to avoid the subject altogether.
Indeed I suggest we call a truce tonight, and talk about something else? Tho not Brexit. God help us.
Yeah, let's talk about automated cars and AI.
Ok.
AI is producing some really weird phenomena, even in its most embryonic forms. Check this I saw today
A couple of decades ago, there was a very interesting phenomena reported where a neural net was switched off and random 'images' of the data was seen as it was powering down, leading to people wondering if it was an equivalent of dreaming. In other words, as your brain goes into deep sleep, do certain parts of it 'trigger' data that the rest of the brain tries to interpret?
This was a long time ago, I read it in a couple of journals, and have not heard much of it since. But it did bring to mind a certain book by Philip K. Dick.
So the big question today is has TM done the right thing by becoming the chief negotiator and is she now driving a deal and taking on ERG
There is a pattern here. Brexiteers and Remainers take it in turns to be thrown under a bus by TM's edicts, which appear out of thin air. She is accumulating a mighty list of enemies. Her 'deal' will appear likewise at the last minute, and parliament will be bounced into a take this or crash out ultimatum.
There have been stories about child marriages and about how the authorities in Sweden and Germany deal with migrants arriving with children already "married" for a number of years now.
Why this isn't treated as child abuse beats me. Whatever may be acceptable in Syria or wherever surely shouldn't be acceptable here, no matter what the child's culture or how "diverse" her background is.
Indeed. Although child marriage is surprisingly common and tolerated in the USA also. And not amongst Muslims. It seems to go hand in hand with religious delusions.
Bonkers. How can - in a so-called Christian marriage - there be genuine consent from a child?
More than 200,000 children married in US over the last 15 years
Girls as young as 10 were among the minors who wedded under legal loopholes
In May [2017] the high-profile Republican governor for New Jersey declined to sign into law a measure that would have made his state the first to ban child marriage without exception. Chris Christie claimed it would conflict with religious customs.
I am fascinated to learn what could possibly lead to a struggle with that issue, it is surely a no brainer.
Unbelievably, I read that some child marriages still take place in the USA. I hope that's not true.
A problem is that there isn't a consensus even in Europe on the definition of a child in the sexual/marital context (from 14 in Germany to 18 in Turkey), see
If you marry legally in one country, can you be arrested for it in another? If the answer is no, then the least common denominator becomes the rule, which doesn't seem right - what if there's some country where there is no lower limit? If the answer is yes, do you really split up a couple who believe they're happy together and married under the law in a neighbouring country?
In Britain, I believe the de facto age of consent is 14, so long as there isn't a significant age gap (you don't get any 16-year-olds prosecuted for sleeping with 15-year-olds). But you can't get married yet, which feels right to me but perverse to some fundamentalists of all religions who feel that allowing sex but forbidding marriage is perverse.
So the big question today is has TM done the right thing by becoming the chief negotiator and is she now driving a deal and taking on ERG
There is a pattern here. Brexiteers and Remainers take it in turns to be thrown under a bus by TM's edicts, which appear out of thin air. She is accumulating a mighty list of enemies. Her 'deal' will appear likewise at the last minute, and parliament will be bounced into a take this or crash out ultimatum.
And then she stands down having undertaken the worse job in British politics since the war
Comments
What does most? mean 51% or 99%. You are a bit of a fact free zone.
Janet Daby, at 17:01:44,
Jared O'Mara, at 17:16:10:
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/83036152-7f77-4d63-98a6-1d82b563b395
After Mrs May is finished alienating 15-20% of her vote this Autumn with total capitulation on Free Movement and the 40Bn Freeby. Labour are going to be very well set.
(Apart from Sinn Fein MPs, obviously).
...........................................................
Officials have suggested the current blazes may have been started by arsonists looking to loot abandoned homes.'"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44941934
Aldi this morning no English Sparkling Water. Tesco this afternoon no English sparkling water, still got the awful french stuff that tastes bad with gammon.
Stock up on sparkling water now, it is all brexit's fault and there will be panic buying. Raab to be sacked, Maybot to make a statement to the House, the middle class can not live with out sparkling water (or I can not, voting socialist nutter party now).
https://twitter.com/soledadobrien/status/1021770367449419776
And yours truly, stockpiling my favourite loo rolls and a generous supply of confectionery :-)
Seriously, the problem with all these scare stories is the same: most of the credibility of those making them was blown by the forecast apocalypse not happening on 24th June 2016, or at any time thereafter. It makes the doomsayers sound like one of these crazy American religious sects that continuously tries and fails to correctly prophesy the date of the Rapture. And besides, most people aren't listening anyway.
Now that the football's over the main topic of national conversation is the hot weather. Arguments about the UK's relationship with Europe are for the small minority who are really interested. The rest of the population is, I would surmise, in the same position as they've been for the last two years: they either think the vote's been held and expect the Government to get on with it, or they're entirely ignorant of the whole issue and have been all along.
I'd think Labour could avoid a split, the tories woukd split and that would encourage them to keep it together long enough for a ge after a failed attempt to get a referendum through.
But referendum seems the only way a deal, likely to be watered down more, can get through. So not many viable options.
Hence no deal.
The parties are not well prepared for that, though it's easier for Corbyn. And anything could happen as a result.
(IMO) The twitter mob such as Paul Mason (and Dawn Butler on BBCQT) were running with a demonisation campaign, with quite a lot of it simply untrue.
And unfortunately Theresa May and similar have long had a glass jaw in such circumstances.
If we are going back to the Seventies, with shortages and National Front marches, we ought to have appropriate refreshments.
"Woman, 47, seriously injured in acid attack by biker in Birmingham
Police believe she was targeted by a person on a moped or pushbike, who launched the substance at her as they made their way past."
https://news.sky.com/story/woman-suffers-serious-injuries-in-acid-attack-in-birmingham-11447278
Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it 'scientific fact'.
Define 'smarter'.
This sort of thing is filled with difficulties and problems: from the tests themselves and what they are testing, through various biases, to whether any differences found are due to external factors, cultural biases or intrinsic biological traits within a group. Then there are some of the claims made on the basis of the research.
As a similar example, look at the debates on here about whether or not grammar schools improve results. People argue about this both ways, using data to back up their claims. That is in a much easier area, (*) but still people cannot agree.
(*) As it happens, I think they do, if marginally.
The only thing liable to significantly deter these crimes is to make them punishable by life imprisonment. It would be easy enough to do. If we wasted less resources on locking lots of people up for short terms then plenty of prison spaces would be freed up in which to warehouse these scumbags.
A binary option between Leaving Without A Deal and Remaining in the EU makes sense but that's not what would be on offer if May comes back with something however unpalatable.
Absolutely. "IQ scores," explains Cornell University's Stephen Ceci, "can change quite dramatically as a result of changes in family environment (Clarke, 1976; Svendsen, 1982), work environment (Kohn and Schooler, 1978), historical environment (Flynn, 1987), styles of parenting (Baumrind, 1967; Dornbusch, 1987), and, most especially, shifts in level of schooling."[v]"
from:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/07/the-truth-about-iq/22260/
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/27/471885452/when-500-palestinians-lose-their-jobs-at-sodastream-whos-to-blame?t=1532458717359
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms
And many more such articles. It is far from settled.
To make it clear: I have absolutely no problem with these sorts of questions being discussed, and think that shouting down legitimate discussion is stupid. But that does not mean the data, process or the conclusions made from it cannot be robustly challenged.
After Raab's comments I thought we might going for the North Korea Brexit. Catching up with PB I see we're now onto the Mad Max Brexit. I can swing the motor- or quadbike, might be on dodgy ground with the mohican and am definitely not going to permitted the catamite. Pity, I look good in a facemask.
Where is the GOP for God's sake?
https://twitter.com/VeraMBergen/status/1021811038390509569
I don't have dogmatic beliefs about this; it's just that your claims don't pass the sniff test. But if were going down this line, I'd be interested in why your 'dogmatic beliefs' have caused you to anchor onto this research so thoroughly.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1021773821018361857
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#APA_task_force_report
"Settled science"
WTF
Just staggering
Do you think it's worth reading?
(*) For the record, I believe the former.
And do so with an open mind.
So tell me, why are you quite so invested in this particular bit of research?
BTW, it's also funny that you rubbish Vox, then edit your post to use something they say as authoritative.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1021839390560202752
It was quite clear - certainly based on what I've read - that it was a deliberate act. What I've learnt though, which I didn't know beforehand, was that there was an earlier famine in 1921 which the Russians did not conceal and where they sought and obtained help from the outside, including US charities. The cause was the same: seizing of grain coupled with poor weather leading to poor harvests. But Lenin was still in charge at this point.
Timothy Snyder's books are very good too: Borderlands especially. But a grim read.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html
Why this isn't treated as child abuse beats me. Whatever may be acceptable in Syria or wherever surely shouldn't be acceptable here, no matter what the child's culture or how "diverse" her background is.
(Or not.)
Unbelievably, I read that some child marriages still take place in the USA. I hope that's not true.
I suspect she's doing it primarily to humiliate Raab because it makes her feel good.
And not amongst Muslims.
It seems to go hand in hand with religious delusions.
The few professors I know are archetypally scatter-brained. The doctors cannot light the correct end of a candle. Those with Masters hit themselves in the face with doors. Those with degrees focus on one area and forget to pay their car tax or council tax.
(As you might have guessed, I don't have a degree.)
Girls as young as 10 were among the minors who wedded under legal loopholes
In May [2017] the high-profile Republican governor for New Jersey declined to sign into law a measure that would have made his state the first to ban child marriage without exception. Chris Christie claimed it would conflict with religious customs.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html?amp
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html
EDIT: Notice TSE is quicker than me....doesn;t make it any less bizarre or disturbing.
This was a long time ago, I read it in a couple of journals, and have not heard much of it since. But it did bring to mind a certain book by Philip K. Dick.
Maybe she is saying come on and take me on if you are big enough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1021845679281459207
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
If you marry legally in one country, can you be arrested for it in another? If the answer is no, then the least common denominator becomes the rule, which doesn't seem right - what if there's some country where there is no lower limit? If the answer is yes, do you really split up a couple who believe they're happy together and married under the law in a neighbouring country?
In Britain, I believe the de facto age of consent is 14, so long as there isn't a significant age gap (you don't get any 16-year-olds prosecuted for sleeping with 15-year-olds). But you can't get married yet, which feels right to me but perverse to some fundamentalists of all religions who feel that allowing sex but forbidding marriage is perverse.