I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).
Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.
More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.
you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.
Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)
Cheers David, not so happy so far, spent it all in hospital, wife has double pneumonia so been pretty rough and I am still struggling as well. Cannot get much worse.
Really sorry to hear that Malcolm. My daughter has been in hospital too since the 27th and it undoubtedly put a damper on things. Hope you both get well soon.
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
That is Labour for you, whoever selected that design should have been shot
IIRC, the Scottish parliament was initially in a really quite nice building (an old school?) but SLAB wanted a new building because the school (possibly) had some sort of SNP connection. At least, that was the view a fierce middle-aged woman offered me when I was standing around minding my own business somewhere near Calton Hill some time in 1998.
Anyway, yes, that building was New Labour to the guttering. Modern for its own sake. Modern just to annoy. Whereas the one in Cardiff was also modern but done in a way which fitted well with the rest of the cityscape.
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).
Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.
More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.
you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.
Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)
Cheers David, not so happy so far, spent it all in hospital, wife has double pneumonia so been pretty rough and I am still struggling as well. Cannot get much worse.
Really sorry to hear that Malcolm. My daughter has been in hospital too since the 27th and it undoubtedly put a damper on things. Hope you both get well soon.
Difficult times for many people. My mother in law has been in hospital since 13/12 and has a very uncertain future.. but we do what we can.
God's blessings to all who have such problems to deal with.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
Do you not think that an employee should be able to refuse to act against his religious beliefs and not be sacked? Or not be denied housing or services because of their beliefs? I am not religious but I think respect for other peoples' beliefs is a part of a civilised and tolerant society.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).
Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.
More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.
you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.
Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)
Cheers David, not so happy so far, spent it all in hospital, wife has double pneumonia so been pretty rough and I am still struggling as well. Cannot get much worse.
Really sorry to hear that Malcolm. My daughter has been in hospital too since the 27th and it undoubtedly put a damper on things. Hope you both get well soon.
Difficult times for many people. My mother in law has been in hospital since 13/12 and has a very uncertain future.. but we do what we can.
God's blessings to all who have such problems to deal with.
Good luck and best wishes to everyone with sick family members.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
Do you not think that an employee should be able to refuse to act against his religious beliefs and not be sacked? Or not be denied housing or services because of their beliefs? I am not religious but I think respect for other peoples' beliefs is a part of a civilised and tolerant society.
But what to do when my Dogma runs over your Karma?
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).
Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.
More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.
you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.
Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)
Cheers David, not so happy so far, spent it all in hospital, wife has double pneumonia so been pretty rough and I am still struggling as well. Cannot get much worse.
Really sorry to hear that Malcolm. My daughter has been in hospital too since the 27th and it undoubtedly put a damper on things. Hope you both get well soon.
Difficult times for many people. My mother in law has been in hospital since 13/12 and has a very uncertain future.. but we do what we can.
God's blessings to all who have such problems to deal with.
Good luck and best wishes to everyone with sick family members.
Every best wish to your good lady in recovering from her double pneumonia. But next year malc, how about you give her Christmas Day off from digging up the turnips?
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
By that logic, so are Pompeo and Trump himself.
I wonder if the Iranians are pondering that the best way to have a much improved relationship with the EU might be to find a way to take out Trump.
It appears that the US have already channelled a message to the Iranians through a middleman suggesting that if they don't respond (or keep it sensible) that the US could ease some pressure elsewhere.
This would context Trumps tweet that Iran hasn't ever won a war but has never failed in a negotiation.
Interesting tactic, 'we have just assassinated one of yours, wanna talk?'
"And we'll just keep assassinating yours until you do wanna...."
In this, as in so many things, I am the anti-Corbyn. I instinctively have sympathy for the position of my own country, the US and the west in general. And yet, when any other country assassinates opponents in the way that the US has done since 9/11 and the advent of drone technology, we rightly call them out as a terrorist state. Who gave the Americans the right to decide who lives and who dies?
In fairness, most countries carry out attacks like this on people they consider threats. We do. The French do. The Chinese do. Certainly the Israelis do.
What sets this apart is that it’s bloody unusual to assassinate a senior politician from another country that you are not at war with. It is sort of the equivalent of the Iranians blowing up Dominic Cummings or Jared Kushner. Now, let’s face it, many people would see no reason to mourn for either of these two being reduced to a heap of smoking charcoal, but at the same time it would be considered rather aggressive and a bit strange, inviting huge retaliation.
I think most countries may well go after terrorist organisations that had caused harm to their citizens and were operating somewhere out the reach of law enforcement. But this is, as you say, a very high ranking official of another sovereign country. It's really an extraordinary move.
He was Head of the QUDS force, which is responsible for foreign actions by Iran i.e IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that have killed and maimed US and British troops. He may well have been a legitimate military target.
By that logic, so are Pompeo and Trump himself.
I wonder if the Iranians are pondering that the best way to have a much improved relationship with the EU might be to find a way to take out Trump.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
They're Ok. I've seen worse. But they were both overdeveloped in the Noughties and now they're just chock full of plastic cladded high-rises. They wont look so good in 20 years...
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
Gender is not a protected characteristic.
I used gender to cover both sex and gender reassignment, both of which are.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
Gender is not a protected characteristic.
I used gender to cover both sex and gender reassignment, both of which are.
Which is not gender. Gender is an invented social concept. Gender reassignment is protected and refers to people who are in the process of changing their sex through surgery. They don’t really change it of course they just mutilate their genitals, but the GRA forces us all to pretend that vacate John has had his penis cut off and wears a dress we must call him Joanna, it applies to a very small number of people. . But that is not gender.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Do you really think one's religion is a choice? If you do, then that opens the door to systematic religious persecution. If you don't, then the argument fails.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
I disagree. If you make a choice about what opinions you profess or beliefs you have, society has no obligation to protect you from the consequences of your choice. The reason for not discriminating on the basis of sex or race is that these are unalterable characteristics. Not a choice. Refusing employment to someone because they are black is wrong because it is irrelevant and something the person concerned can do nothing about.
Refusing to employ someone who believes in creationism as a science teacher is legitimate because the belief is relevant to the decision and is a choice by the person concerned.
People are free to believe any old nonsense they want. Or to make all sorts of other choices about how they live their lives. They are not entitled to demand that they be protected from the consequences of their choices, especially not when those choices are relevant to the decisions being made.
Of course one's religion is a choice, that's how people convert, and why factions within a religion exist as people choose to interpret things differently than others.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
Follow the link and tell me where it says gender is a protected characteristic. Clue: it isn’t.
‘Gender’ according to the law is synonymous with ‘sex.’ The word comes from ‘genus’ meaning ‘to create life.’ I know there are people who do not wish it to mean that but that’s their problem.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Do you really think one's religion is a choice? If you do, then that opens the door to systematic religious persecution. If you don't, then the argument fails.
There was no religious protection before the new blasphemy acts were brought in in the mid 2000s
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
Where does one buy slightly bizarre gay cake?
(Sorry, couldn't resist it)
LOL, I used to really like Tipsy cake which was made up of the left over bits but it has gone seriously out of fashion.
The South West railway train strike finished yesterday. But they've been off so long the employee elf&safety certs have expired. So they have to take the day off to retrain...
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
I disagree. If you make a choice about what opinions you profess or beliefs you have, society has no obligation to protect you from the consequences of your choice. The reason for not discriminating on the basis of sex or race is that these are unalterable characteristics. Not a choice. Refusing employment to someone because they are black is wrong because it is irrelevant and something the person concerned can do nothing about.
Refusing to employ someone who believes in creationism as a science teacher is legitimate because the belief is relevant to the decision and is a choice by the person concerned.
People are free to believe any old nonsense they want. Or to make all sorts of other choices about how they live their lives. They are not entitled to demand that they be protected from the consequences of their choices, especially not when those choices are relevant to the decisions being made.
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal (so not precedent-setting) and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Do you really think one's religion is a choice? If you do, then that opens the door to systematic religious persecution. If you don't, then the argument fails.
There was no religious protection before the new blasphemy acts were brought in in the mid 2000s
IIRC the new blasphemy laws replaced the old blasphemy laws. And I assume the old blasphemy laws imposed a punishment of some kind against blasphemy, which would imply a degree of religious protection.
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
Gender is not a protected characteristic.
I used gender to cover both sex and gender reassignment, both of which are.
Which is not gender. Gender is an invented social concept. Gender reassignment is protected and refers to people who are in the process of changing their sex through surgery. They don’t really change it of course they just mutilate their genitals, but the GRA forces us all to pretend that vacate John has had his penis cut off and wears a dress we must call him Joanna, it applies to a very small number of people. . But that is not gender.
The South West railway train strike finished yesterday. But they've been off so long the employee elf&safety certs have expired. So they have to take the day off to retrain...
#ihatetrains
Sunil's Great British Railway Journeys - 2019 Edition:
March South Greenford to South Ruislip [NB. previously the train did Paddington to South Ruislip]
July Meadowhall South to Rotherham Central (Supertram) Rotherham Central to Parkgate (Supertram)
August Crediton to Okehampton Ayr to Stranraer Croy to Dundee via Perth Perth to Aviemore Aviemore to Broomhill (Strathspey Railway)
September Camelon to Larbert Stirling to Alloa Cardross to Oban Ladybank to Perth Aviemore to Inverness Crianlarich to Mallaig Leuchars to Dundee Dundee to Aberdeen Inverkeithing to Kirkcaldy via Cowdenbeath
November Retford to Barnetby Sleaford avoider (ECML engineering diversion)
December Grand Central to Birmingham Library (West Midlands Metro) Guide Bridge to Stockport (now runs Sats only)
Also, sustained my 100% record of visiting every station marked in the big "London Tube & Rail" map by visiting Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden, St Albans, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield and Welham Green in December, and just today Taplow, Burnham, Langley and Iver.
EDIT Oh and my first new route for 2020: on New Year's Day, I did Princes Risborough to Chinnor (Chinnor & Princes Risborough Railway)
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.
If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.
It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.
It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).
Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.
More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.
you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.
Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)
Cheers David, not so happy so far, spent it all in hospital, wife has double pneumonia so been pretty rough and I am still struggling as well. Cannot get much worse.
Sorry to hear yourself and Mrs Malc are unwell. Hope you both get better soon.
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
The current laws fall far too generously on the side of the perpetually offended, it's now time for us to win this specific culture war. I'm absolutely not in favour of discrimination based on colour, race or sex, but as Cyclefree says, if I choose not to recruit someone because they choose to believe the sky fairy says all infidels are scum, then that's my prerogative.
This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.
It's a decision by an Employment Tribunal and it was uncontested on this point. So it's hardly a landmark decision.
That said, I don't really see what's objectionable about it. Ethical vegans are far more numerous than many small religious sects and have a worked-through set of ethical beliefs. Why shouldn't they have the same protections as Seventh Day Adventists or Baha'is?
Why should any of these beliefs be protected?
I think that the key difference here is between discrimination and offence. Believers have no right to stop their beliefs being challenged and indeed overruled where society thinks that's appropriate (abortion, gay marriage, cartoons about Mohamed etc). They do have a right not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs whether in employment, services, health care or education. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why should a belief system - which is a choice one makes - automatically protect someone from discrimination? I would not want to employ someone who believed in the tenets of IS, for instance. Why should I not be allowed to take that into account when making an employment decision?
Because that is a protection that a civilised society should offer. Just as with other protected characteristics such as sexuality, race, gender etc. I would concede that the choice element makes this one more challenging and the boundaries are uncertain as the slightly bizarre gay cake decision from the Supreme Court demonstrated but in principle it is the right thing to do.
Where does one buy slightly bizarre gay cake?
(Sorry, couldn't resist it)
LOL, I used to really like Tipsy cake which was made up of the left over bits but it has gone seriously out of fashion.
I will never get over the English plenitude of cakes! When I was a kid all the books occasionally mentioned cakes and desserts that I had never heard of (syllabub, Parkin) and now in adulthood I just keep learning new ones (Eton Mess). Now I have Tipsy cake to process. No wonder England wanted to leave the EU. How can such a place be governed when you keep on inventing cakes?
And as for "salted caramel"... well, you're just taking the p**s at this point...
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
The current laws fall far too generously on the side of the perpetually offended, it's now time for us to win this specific culture war. I'm absolutely not in favour of discrimination based on colour, race or sex, but as Cyclefree says, if I choose not to recruit someone because they choose to believe the sky fairy says all infidels are scum, then that's my prerogative.
Any particular religions raise your ire, or just a few specific ones...
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
I think Holyrood is a very interesting bit of architecture, although there is nothing Scottish about it, and I would rate it architecturally above the Berlin and Canberra parliaments, which were also expensive projects.
Apart from the project mismanagement, you can see why it cost so much to build. There are no two straight lines in the place. It's a very fluid design. Parts of the building work better than others in my view but it's all visually interesting.
The South West railway train strike finished yesterday. But they've been off so long the employee elf&safety certs have expired. So they have to take the day off to retrain...
#ihatetrains
Sunil's Great British Railway Journeys - 2019 Edition:
March South Greenford to South Ruislip [NB. previously the train did Paddington to South Ruislip]
July Meadowhall South to Rotherham Central (Supertram) Rotherham Central to Parkgate (Supertram)
August Crediton to Okehampton Ayr to Stranraer Croy to Dundee via Perth Perth to Aviemore Aviemore to Broomhill (Strathspey Railway)
September Camelon to Larbert Stirling to Alloa Cardross to Oban Ladybank to Perth Aviemore to Inverness Crianlarich to Mallaig Leuchars to Dundee Dundee to Aberdeen Inverkeithing to Kirkcaldy via Cowdenbeath
November Retford to Barnetby Sleaford avoider (ECML engineering diversion)
December Grand Central to Birmingham Library (West Midlands Metro) Guide Bridge to Stockport (now runs Sats only)
Also, sustained my 100% record of visiting every station marked in the big "London Tube & Rail" map by visiting Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden, St Albans, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield and Welham Green in December, and just today Taplow, Burnham, Langley and Iver.
EDIT Oh and my first new route for 2020: on New Year's Day, I did Princes Risborough to Chinnor (Chinnor & Princes Risborough Railway)
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
I think Holyrood is a very interesting bit of architecture, although there is nothing Scottish about it, and I would rate it architecturally above the Berlin and Canberra parliaments, which were also expensive projects.
Apart from the project mismanagement, you can see why it cost so much to build. There are no two straight lines in the place. It's a very fluid design. Parts of the building work better than others in my view but it's all visually interesting.
(Anguished sotto voce groan) I know what you mean, and it works in theory, but I was looking at it and all I could think of is "shed"...
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
The current laws fall far too generously on the side of the perpetually offended, it's now time for us to win this specific culture war. I'm absolutely not in favour of discrimination based on colour, race or sex, but as Cyclefree says, if I choose not to recruit someone because they choose to believe the sky fairy says all infidels are scum, then that's my prerogative.
Any particular religions raise your ire, or just a few specific ones...
On topic, in the US the second tier Democrats (Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg) have finally worked out that by attacking each other, all they're doing is handing Biden the nomination.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
On topic, in the US the second tier Democrats (Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg) have finally worked out that by attacking each other, all they're doing is handing Biden the nomination.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
What does this mean? F*cked if I know.
The most likely outcome - to me - is Buttigieg first, Sanders second. The question, that is very much unresolved, is whether this is enough to make Buttigieg the establishment candidate.
The possible upset would be if Klobuchar snuck into a decent position. She performed very well in the last debate, and the next one is just a week or so away (in Iowa), with a far less crowded stage. She's from a neighbouring state, and her on the ground organisation is better than Biden's. I don't think it's impossible she ends up with a reasonable result.
The South West railway train strike finished yesterday. But they've been off so long the employee elf&safety certs have expired. So they have to take the day off to retrain...
#ihatetrains
Sunil's Great British Railway Journeys - 2019 Edition:
March South Greenford to South Ruislip [NB. previously the train did Paddington to South Ruislip]
July Meadowhall South to Rotherham Central (Supertram) Rotherham Central to Parkgate (Supertram)
August Crediton to Okehampton Ayr to Stranraer Croy to Dundee via Perth Perth to Aviemore Aviemore to Broomhill (Strathspey Railway)
September Camelon to Larbert Stirling to Alloa Cardross to Oban Ladybank to Perth Aviemore to Inverness Crianlarich to Mallaig Leuchars to Dundee Dundee to Aberdeen Inverkeithing to Kirkcaldy via Cowdenbeath
November Retford to Barnetby Sleaford avoider (ECML engineering diversion)
December Grand Central to Birmingham Library (West Midlands Metro) Guide Bridge to Stockport (now runs Sats only)
Also, sustained my 100% record of visiting every station marked in the big "London Tube & Rail" map by visiting Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden, St Albans, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield and Welham Green in December, and just today Taplow, Burnham, Langley and Iver.
EDIT Oh and my first new route for 2020: on New Year's Day, I did Princes Risborough to Chinnor (Chinnor & Princes Risborough Railway)
There's a bloke on YouTube called Geoff Marshall who does train stuff, and he's very good... well perhaps "thorough" is a better word. If you haven't watched him I think you'd like him.
Videos on train travel in the States are a bit depressing, since they have very long travel times and the interior design is a bit rectilinear. It's too big and too widely spaced to sustain a train culture like the UK.
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
The current laws fall far too generously on the side of the perpetually offended, it's now time for us to win this specific culture war. I'm absolutely not in favour of discrimination based on colour, race or sex, but as Cyclefree says, if I choose not to recruit someone because they choose to believe the sky fairy says all infidels are scum, then that's my prerogative.
Or, indeed, why shouldn't I be allowed to discriminate against those who think Die Hard is not a Christmas movie?
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
The current laws fall far too generously on the side of the perpetually offended, it's now time for us to win this specific culture war. I'm absolutely not in favour of discrimination based on colour, race or sex, but as Cyclefree says, if I choose not to recruit someone because they choose to believe the sky fairy says all infidels are scum, then that's my prerogative.
Any particular religions raise your ire, or just a few specific ones...
All of the in your face ones.
Famously the Church of England thrived because it gave nice middle-class agnostics somewhere quiet to sit down on Sundays. There is a small part of me that thoroughly approves...
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
The current laws fall far too generously on the side of the perpetually offended, it's now time for us to win this specific culture war. I'm absolutely not in favour of discrimination based on colour, race or sex, but as Cyclefree says, if I choose not to recruit someone because they choose to believe the sky fairy says all infidels are scum, then that's my prerogative.
Or, indeed, why shouldn't I be allowed to discriminate against those who think Die Hard is not a Christmas movie?
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
The current laws fall far too generously on the side of the perpetually offended, it's now time for us to win this specific culture war. I'm absolutely not in favour of discrimination based on colour, race or sex, but as Cyclefree says, if I choose not to recruit someone because they choose to believe the sky fairy says all infidels are scum, then that's my prerogative.
Or, indeed, why shouldn't I be allowed to discriminate against those who think Die Hard is not a Christmas movie?
On topic, in the US the second tier Democrats (Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg) have finally worked out that by attacking each other, all they're doing is handing Biden the nomination.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
What does this mean? F*cked if I know.
The most likely outcome - to me - is Buttigieg first, Sanders second. The question, that is very much unresolved, is whether this is enough to make Buttigieg the establishment candidate.
The possible upset would be if Klobuchar snuck into a decent position. She performed very well in the last debate, and the next one is just a week or so away (in Iowa), with a far less crowded stage. She's from a neighbouring state, and her on the ground organisation is better than Biden's. I don't think it's impossible she ends up with a reasonable result.
On topic, in the US the second tier Democrats (Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg) have finally worked out that by attacking each other, all they're doing is handing Biden the nomination.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
What does this mean? F*cked if I know.
The most likely outcome - to me - is Buttigieg first, Sanders second. The question, that is very much unresolved, is whether this is enough to make Buttigieg the establishment candidate.
The possible upset would be if Klobuchar snuck into a decent position. She performed very well in the last debate, and the next one is just a week or so away (in Iowa), with a far less crowded stage. She's from a neighbouring state, and her on the ground organisation is better than Biden's. I don't think it's impossible she ends up with a reasonable result.
I think Klobouchar will get 0 delegates from Iowa - she's way under 15%:
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
The current laws fall far too generously on the side of the perpetually offended, it's now time for us to win this specific culture war. I'm absolutely not in favour of discrimination based on colour, race or sex, but as Cyclefree says, if I choose not to recruit someone because they choose to believe the sky fairy says all infidels are scum, then that's my prerogative.
Or, indeed, why shouldn't I be allowed to discriminate against those who think Die Hard is not a Christmas movie?
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
But upthread you are keen to punish someone by refusing them employment if they have religious opinions that you disagree with. So your employees have to slink around buttoning their lips when you come within earshot. This is freedom of expression?
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
Bristol would be nearly as expensive as Oxford, otherwise I would have thought it would be a match for it. It’s a pleasanter city than Oxford in many crucial respects actually. But I would have thought the obvious place to look for that combination while avoiding vast expense would be Cheltenham.
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
The current laws fall far too generously on the side of the perpetually offended, it's now time for us to win this specific culture war. I'm absolutely not in favour of discrimination based on colour, race or sex, but as Cyclefree says, if I choose not to recruit someone because they choose to believe the sky fairy says all infidels are scum, then that's my prerogative.
Any particular religions raise your ire, or just a few specific ones...
All of the in your face ones.
Famously the Church of England thrived because it gave nice middle-class agnostics somewhere quiet to sit down on Sundays. There is a small part of me that thoroughly approves...
I remember the shock I felt - well into my thirties - when I realised there were people in the Church of England who genuinely did believe in (and indeed did talk to, with every expectation of being listened to) an all powerful God and a Jesus who came back to life for a bit, and all the other trappings.
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
I think we know Oxford is a dump.
Happy New year.
Academia seems quite weak away from Cambridge and Hull. I'd guess that Manchester would be the answer.
I suspect others have asked, but where are your allegiances or wishes for the next leader?
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
The current laws fall far too generously on the side of the perpetually offended, it's now time for us to win this specific culture war. I'm absolutely not in favour of discrimination based on colour, race or sex, but as Cyclefree says, if I choose not to recruit someone because they choose to believe the sky fairy says all infidels are scum, then that's my prerogative.
Or, indeed, why shouldn't I be allowed to discriminate against those who think Die Hard is not a Christmas movie?
Those people definitely don't deserve a promotion.
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
Bristol would be nearly as expensive as Oxford, otherwise I would have thought it would be a match for it. It’s a pleasanter city than Oxford in many crucial respects actually. But I would have thought the obvious place to look for that combination while avoiding vast expense would be Cheltenham.
Are there any geographical limitations? I would say almost any of our big cities offer a rich cultural environment without the cost of London or Oxford: Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Newcastle, Sheffield, Liverpool, Nottingham. If you're restricted to the bottom half of the country, Birmingham sounds the obvious choice.
On topic, in the US the second tier Democrats (Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg) have finally worked out that by attacking each other, all they're doing is handing Biden the nomination.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
What does this mean? F*cked if I know.
The most likely outcome - to me - is Buttigieg first, Sanders second. The question, that is very much unresolved, is whether this is enough to make Buttigieg the establishment candidate.
The possible upset would be if Klobuchar snuck into a decent position. She performed very well in the last debate, and the next one is just a week or so away (in Iowa), with a far less crowded stage. She's from a neighbouring state, and her on the ground organisation is better than Biden's. I don't think it's impossible she ends up with a reasonable result.
I think Klobouchar will get 0 delegates from Iowa - she's way under 15%:
In December 2003, just two months before the Iowa caucuses, John Kerry was polling at 9%, and John Edwards at 5%.
There's a debate with far fewer candidates, that's in Iowa, between now and the caucuses. She's well organised. Amy Klobuchar's price is simply too skinny.
On topic, in the US the second tier Democrats (Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg) have finally worked out that by attacking each other, all they're doing is handing Biden the nomination.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
What does this mean? F*cked if I know.
The most likely outcome - to me - is Buttigieg first, Sanders second. The question, that is very much unresolved, is whether this is enough to make Buttigieg the establishment candidate.
The possible upset would be if Klobuchar snuck into a decent position. She performed very well in the last debate, and the next one is just a week or so away (in Iowa), with a far less crowded stage. She's from a neighbouring state, and her on the ground organisation is better than Biden's. I don't think it's impossible she ends up with a reasonable result.
The new Iowa caucuses poll average from 270 to win from January 2nd has Sanders overtaking Buttigieg to lead 21.5% to 21% with Biden 3rd on 19% and Warren 4th on 15%
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
But upthread you are keen to punish someone by refusing them employment if they have religious opinions that you disagree with. So your employees have to slink around buttoning their lips when you come within earshot. This is freedom of expression?
Who I choose to employ, with my own money, is surely an expression too. Why shouldn't I be allowed to employ people based on their voluntary beliefs?
(Gender, race, sexual orientation - these are all things we don't choose. And it's not acceptable to discriminate on that basis. Music, religion, movies, we should be able to discriminate on.)
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
Bristol would be nearly as expensive as Oxford, otherwise I would have thought it would be a match for it. It’s a pleasanter city than Oxford in many crucial respects actually. But I would have thought the obvious place to look for that combination while avoiding vast expense would be Cheltenham.
Are there any geographical limitations? I would say almost any of our big cities offer a rich cultural environment without the cost of London or Oxford: Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Newcastle, Sheffield, Liverpool, Nottingham. If you're restricted to the bottom half of the country, Birmingham sounds the obvious choice.
Yes, but then you’re living in Birmingham. Lichfield might be an acceptable substitute I suppose and it has regular trains to Birmingham, London and (with one change) Manchester.
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
You are, if I may say so, confusing the right to believe what one wants (freedom of thought/religion/expression) - which should be protected - with the demand that how one exercises those freedoms should entail no consequences whatsoever. That is absurd. It is in effect saying that people should be treated like adults (free to choose) when it’s in their favour but also be protected like babies when they exercise their choice. No. Just no.
As per @NickPalmer’s post just now, someone is perfectly entitled to believe in creationism and indeed go round expressing those views to all to who wish to listen. But a school wishing to employ a science teacher is entitled to say that this is relevant to the job and such views make a person unfit to be a science teacher. If a creationist wanted to be a lavatory cleaner no-one would give a damn. We must not just have the right to criticise other people’s opinions but also take them into account in our decision-making, especially when those opinions are relevant to the decision being taken.
Otherwise the right to claim no discrimination very rapidly turns into a demand that there be no criticism. Criticism is, after all, a form of discrimination.
On topic, in the US the second tier Democrats (Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg) have finally worked out that by attacking each other, all they're doing is handing Biden the nomination.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
What does this mean? F*cked if I know.
The most likely outcome - to me - is Buttigieg first, Sanders second. The question, that is very much unresolved, is whether this is enough to make Buttigieg the establishment candidate.
The possible upset would be if Klobuchar snuck into a decent position. She performed very well in the last debate, and the next one is just a week or so away (in Iowa), with a far less crowded stage. She's from a neighbouring state, and her on the ground organisation is better than Biden's. I don't think it's impossible she ends up with a reasonable result.
The new Iowa caucuses poll average from 270 to win from January 2nd has Sanders overtaking Buttigieg to lead 21.5% to 21% with Biden 3rd on 19% and Warren 4th on 15%
Sanders has a weaker on the ground organisation that Buttigieg, especially in rural areas where his presence is almost non-existent. In small rural precincts, there will be a couple of Buttigieg organisers, a Warren one, and a Klobuchar one. I think that means that Sanders struggles to get to 15% in those places.
If the polls remain the same (which of course they won't), then I would expect Buttigieg to beat Sanders in Iowa.
That being said, there's still a month to go, and a debate with far fewer candidates. The attack on Iran probably plays into Sanders hands too. So, we'll see.
On topic, in the US the second tier Democrats (Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg) have finally worked out that by attacking each other, all they're doing is handing Biden the nomination.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
What does this mean? F*cked if I know.
The most likely outcome - to me - is Buttigieg first, Sanders second. The question, that is very much unresolved, is whether this is enough to make Buttigieg the establishment candidate.
The possible upset would be if Klobuchar snuck into a decent position. She performed very well in the last debate, and the next one is just a week or so away (in Iowa), with a far less crowded stage. She's from a neighbouring state, and her on the ground organisation is better than Biden's. I don't think it's impossible she ends up with a reasonable result.
The new Iowa caucuses poll average from 270 to win from January 2nd has Sanders overtaking Buttigieg to lead 21.5% to 21% with Biden 3rd on 19% and Warren 4th on 15%
Sanders has a weaker on the ground organisation that Buttigieg, especially in rural areas where his presence is almost non-existent. In small rural precincts, there will be a couple of Buttigieg organisers, a Warren one, and a Klobuchar one. I think that means that Sanders struggles to get to 15% in those places.
If the polls remain the same (which of course they won't), then I would expect Buttigieg to beat Sanders in Iowa.
That being said, there's still a month to go, and a debate with far fewer candidates. The attack on Iran probably plays into Sanders hands too. So, we'll see.
Sanders got 49.59% in the Iowa caucuses last time and his organisation will likely be better this time
On topic, in the US the second tier Democrats (Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg) have finally worked out that by attacking each other, all they're doing is handing Biden the nomination.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
What does this mean? F*cked if I know.
The most likely outcome - to me - is Buttigieg first, Sanders second. The question, that is very much unresolved, is whether this is enough to make Buttigieg the establishment candidate.
The possible upset would be if Klobuchar snuck into a decent position. She performed very well in the last debate, and the next one is just a week or so away (in Iowa), with a far less crowded stage. She's from a neighbouring state, and her on the ground organisation is better than Biden's. I don't think it's impossible she ends up with a reasonable result.
The new Iowa caucuses poll average from 270 to win from January 2nd has Sanders overtaking Buttigieg to lead 21.5% to 21% with Biden 3rd on 19% and Warren 4th on 15%
As an aside, I don't see how they get to a 21.5% average for Sanders given that he's only had two poll results of 22%, and every other poll has been below that level.
I think that we will just have to agree to differ on this. I accept that there is some merit in your argument but I think that the balance of good favours the current position.
It really isn't. It's a huge impingement on freedom of expression. Opinions and beliefs should not be a protected characteristic, our society has become a worse place ever since we started restricting what people were and weren't allowed to criticise.
I specifically said that criticism is not and should not be prevented. There is no right not to be offended and rightly so. Discrimination is different.
You are, if I may say so, confusing the right to believe what one wants (freedom of thought/religion/expression) - which should be protected - with the demand that how one exercises those freedoms should entail no consequences whatsoever. That is absurd. It is in effect saying that people should be treated like adults (free to choose) when it’s in their favour but also be protected like babies when they exercise their choice. No. Just no.
As per @NickPalmer’s post just now, someone is perfectly entitled to believe in creationism and indeed go round expressing those views to all to who wish to listen. But a school wishing to employ a science teacher is entitled to say that this is relevant to the job and such views make a person unfit to be a science teacher. If a creationist wanted to be a lavatory cleaner no-one would give a damn. We must not just have the right to criticise other people’s opinions but also take them into account in our decision-making, especially when those opinions are relevant to the decision being taken.
Otherwise the right to claim no discrimination very rapidly turns into a demand that there be no criticism. Criticism is, after all, a form of discrimination.
You can believe in creationism all you like. You're an idiot if you do though. Biblical literalism much the same.
The tolerance we extend to all sorts of fruits and nutcakes (maybe I'm one) isn't a suspension of wisdom.
If you believe in something silly then you deserve and expect to be told that it's silly.
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
I think Holyrood is a very interesting bit of architecture, although there is nothing Scottish about it, and I would rate it architecturally above the Berlin and Canberra parliaments, which were also expensive projects.
Apart from the project mismanagement, you can see why it cost so much to build. There are no two straight lines in the place. It's a very fluid design. Parts of the building work better than others in my view but it's all visually interesting.
(Anguished sotto voce groan) I know what you mean, and it works in theory, but I was looking at it and all I could think of is "shed"...
I think Holyrood works visually better on the inside than the outside. I particularly like the committee rooms:
For something Scottish they should choose a classical design to reflect Scotland's 300 year love affair with classicism. Starting just across the road:
Ending up in the 1950s with the National Library. What classicism means in the 21st century, I'm not sure:
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
Bristol would be nearly as expensive as Oxford, otherwise I would have thought it would be a match for it. It’s a pleasanter city than Oxford in many crucial respects actually. But I would have thought the obvious place to look for that combination while avoiding vast expense would be Cheltenham.
Which is not gender. Gender is an invented social concept. Gender reassignment is protected and refers to people who are in the process of changing their sex through surgery. They don’t really change it of course they just mutilate their genitals, but the GRA forces us all to pretend that vacate John has had his penis cut off and wears a dress we must call him Joanna, it applies to a very small number of people. . But that is not gender.
For a fellow who keeps stating the left is obsessed with trans issue you sure do seem.... a touch obsessed?
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
Bristol would be nearly as expensive as Oxford, otherwise I would have thought it would be a match for it. It’s a pleasanter city than Oxford in many crucial respects actually. But I would have thought the obvious place to look for that combination while avoiding vast expense would be Cheltenham.
You are, if I may say so, confusing the right to believe what one wants (freedom of thought/religion/expression) - which should be protected - with the demand that how one exercises those freedoms should entail no consequences whatsoever. That is absurd. It is in effect saying that people should be treated like adults (free to choose) when it’s in their favour but also be protected like babies when they exercise their choice. No. Just no.
As per @NickPalmer’s post just now, someone is perfectly entitled to believe in creationism and indeed go round expressing those views to all to who wish to listen. But a school wishing to employ a science teacher is entitled to say that this is relevant to the job and such views make a person unfit to be a science teacher. If a creationist wanted to be a lavatory cleaner no-one would give a damn. We must not just have the right to criticise other people’s opinions but also take them into account in our decision-making, especially when those opinions are relevant to the decision being taken.
Otherwise the right to claim no discrimination very rapidly turns into a demand that there be no criticism. Criticism is, after all, a form of discrimination.
Yes, I think that's reasonable. Moreover, I would take a dim view if my staff went around haranguing colleagues about their religious or political views, even if they were identical to my own. But unlike MaxPB I absolutely wouldn't refuse to employ them if they had views that differed from mine, unless, as Cyclefree says, those beliefs hampered their ability to do the job. Otherwise you end up with the Cold War stuff of German public services refusing to employ engine-drivers and postal workers who happened to be communists.
I try to stick to this with people whose views are repellent - e.g. I discovered when I was ruynning an environmental campaign that one of the key campaign workers was a BNP member (someone leaked the membership list). He wasn't expressing his views in the context of what we were working on, so I decided it was none of my business.
On topic, in the US the second tier Democrats (Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg) have finally worked out that by attacking each other, all they're doing is handing Biden the nomination.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
What does this mean? F*cked if I know.
The most likely outcome - to me - is Buttigieg first, Sanders second. The question, that is very much unresolved, is whether this is enough to make Buttigieg the establishment candidate.
The possible upset would be if Klobuchar snuck into a decent position. She performed very well in the last debate, and the next one is just a week or so away (in Iowa), with a far less crowded stage. She's from a neighbouring state, and her on the ground organisation is better than Biden's. I don't think it's impossible she ends up with a reasonable result.
The new Iowa caucuses poll average from 270 to win from January 2nd has Sanders overtaking Buttigieg to lead 21.5% to 21% with Biden 3rd on 19% and Warren 4th on 15%
As an aside, I don't see how they get to a 21.5% average for Sanders given that he's only had two poll results of 22%, and every other poll has been below that level.
It is an average of the last 2 polls (the only ones in December) and nationally of course Sanders is miles ahead of Buttigieg.
All the signs are the general election is moving to a Trump v Sanders contest and the biggest ideological divide since Nixon v McGovern
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
Bristol would be nearly as expensive as Oxford, otherwise I would have thought it would be a match for it. It’s a pleasanter city than Oxford in many crucial respects actually. But I would have thought the obvious place to look for that combination while avoiding vast expense would be Cheltenham.
Winchester
Really?
I want to like Winchester, but I've found it to be a cultural non-entity. Admittedly on little evidence.
Salisbury seems much better, with perhaps a similar background.
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
Been a while since I was there but Birmingham certainly used to tick those cultural boxes. I am guessing the city's not on your friend's shortlist...
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
Bristol would be nearly as expensive as Oxford, otherwise I would have thought it would be a match for it. It’s a pleasanter city than Oxford in many crucial respects actually. But I would have thought the obvious place to look for that combination while avoiding vast expense would be Cheltenham.
Winchester
Only ever been to Winchester once, for a wedding which didn’t leave much time for sightseeing. What I did see I liked.
The person who was getting married made an unfortunate error later. He had met his bride through a rugby club, so he named all the tables after positions on the rugby field. He referred to this in his speech later, saying we could probably guess how they met. At this point his new teenage stepson piped up that his table had been called ‘hooker...’
But that doesn't change the fact that Sanders doesn't have people in rural areas. When the caucus comes around, and forty people gather in a chilly church hall, there will be two Buttigieg organisers, one Warren one, and probably a Biden and a Klobuchar one. He has fewer offices, and fewer paid staffers than 2016.
I would expect that Sanders will do exceptionally well in urban Iowa, and around the universities. I would expect him to do much less well in conservative, rural Iowa.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
Bristol would be nearly as expensive as Oxford, otherwise I would have thought it would be a match for it. It’s a pleasanter city than Oxford in many crucial respects actually. But I would have thought the obvious place to look for that combination while avoiding vast expense would be Cheltenham.
Thanks for the comments, all. I didn't know Cheltenham had a university! The guy does want to live in the south for family reasons. Does anyone know Southampton at all?
On the leadership question, I'm keeping an open mind at present. Let's hear what the candidates have to say.
But that doesn't change the fact that Sanders doesn't have people in rural areas. When the caucus comes around, and forty people gather in a chilly church hall, there will be two Buttigieg organisers, one Warren one, and probably a Biden and a Klobuchar one. He has fewer offices, and fewer paid staffers than 2016.
I would expect that Sanders will do exceptionally well in urban Iowa, and around the universities. I would expect him to do much less well in conservative, rural Iowa.
And Biden and Klobuchar will also be competing for that more conservative rural vote with Buttigieg, Sanders only has a rapidly fading Warren to compete with in urban, liberal Iowa
I have seen the Scottish Parliament. Somebody, somewhere, is missing a B&Q. It's made even worse by th fact it's in Edinburgh, which is stuffed to the gunnels with nice buildings. How the hell Cardiff, which is a slightly worse version of Bristol, ended up with a nicer Parliament is beyond me.
Oi! Both Bristol and Cardiff are fine cities. Certainly far better than London.
I was recently asked by someone who wants to live within reach of a reasonably rich cultural environment without paying a fortune whether Bristol or Southampton were any good - concerts, open lectures, that sort of thing - and not as expensive as London or Oxford. Any advice?
Bristol would be nearly as expensive as Oxford, otherwise I would have thought it would be a match for it. It’s a pleasanter city than Oxford in many crucial respects actually. But I would have thought the obvious place to look for that combination while avoiding vast expense would be Cheltenham.
Winchester
Really?
I want to like Winchester, but I've found it to be a cultural non-entity. Admittedly on little evidence.
Salisbury seems much better, with perhaps a similar background.
I tried to expand the entry but I got caught by the six-minute rule. Yes, Salisbury is better, but there's something about Winchester I like. I think it's a question of scale: it's the kind of place where you can easily walk to-and-fro. I think I imposed my own desires on the OP rather than answering the question...
Comments
Anyway, yes, that building was New Labour to the guttering. Modern for its own sake. Modern just to annoy. Whereas the one in Cardiff was also modern but done in a way which fitted well with the rest of the cityscape.
God's blessings to all who have such problems to deal with.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/19/fresh-complaints-about-lgbt-lessons-at-greater-manchester-primary-schools
Should a Hindu waiter be forced to serve steaks? Should a Seventh Day Adventist be forced to work the Saturday shift just like his/her co workers....
Like Brutus killing Caesar to save the Republic, only to end it.
If he was in person X role he would do those acts, so he thinks those people will also do it.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics
Refusing to employ someone who believes in creationism as a science teacher is legitimate because the belief is relevant to the decision and is a choice by the person concerned.
People are free to believe any old nonsense they want. Or to make all sorts of other choices about how they live their lives. They are not entitled to demand that they be protected from the consequences of their choices, especially not when those choices are relevant to the decisions being made.
(Sorry, couldn't resist it)
#ihatetrains
March
South Greenford to South Ruislip
[NB. previously the train did Paddington to South Ruislip]
July
Meadowhall South to Rotherham Central (Supertram)
Rotherham Central to Parkgate (Supertram)
August
Crediton to Okehampton
Ayr to Stranraer
Croy to Dundee via Perth
Perth to Aviemore
Aviemore to Broomhill (Strathspey Railway)
September
Camelon to Larbert
Stirling to Alloa
Cardross to Oban
Ladybank to Perth
Aviemore to Inverness
Crianlarich to Mallaig
Leuchars to Dundee
Dundee to Aberdeen
Inverkeithing to Kirkcaldy via Cowdenbeath
November
Retford to Barnetby
Sleaford avoider (ECML engineering diversion)
December
Grand Central to Birmingham Library (West Midlands Metro)
Guide Bridge to Stockport (now runs Sats only)
Also, sustained my 100% record of visiting every station marked in the big "London Tube & Rail" map by visiting Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden, St Albans, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield and Welham Green in December, and just today Taplow, Burnham, Langley and Iver.
EDIT
Oh and my first new route for 2020: on New Year's Day, I did Princes Risborough to Chinnor (Chinnor & Princes Risborough Railway)
And as for "salted caramel"... well, you're just taking the p**s at this point...
Apart from the project mismanagement, you can see why it cost so much to build. There are no two straight lines in the place. It's a very fluid design. Parts of the building work better than others in my view but it's all visually interesting.
There haven't been any Iowa polls for a while, and the caucuses are getting very close. It's important to remember a couple of things:
1. Organisation matters, and you need to have a lot of people in dusty church halls. It means that those in the second tier are going to get squeezed.
2. There is a 15% bar at the precinct level. This means that someone who is on 15% statewide is going to have precincts where they get 10% and precincts where they get 20%. Those 10% count for nothing - it will be as if they didn't exist.
So, if a candidate is on 15% statewide will, then they will only get (say) 10% of the delegates, because there will be a bunch of precincts where they fall short. This means that the leaders are likely to do disproportionately well.
3. Iowa is a really difficult state to poll. In 2004 at this stage, Howard Dean was first in Iowa polls, while Dick Gephardt was second. Edwards and Kerry were barely in double digits, and yet they got 70% of the caucus vote between them.
The most likely outcome - to me - is Buttigieg first, Sanders second. The question, that is very much unresolved, is whether this is enough to make Buttigieg the establishment candidate.
The possible upset would be if Klobuchar snuck into a decent position. She performed very well in the last debate, and the next one is just a week or so away (in Iowa), with a far less crowded stage. She's from a neighbouring state, and her on the ground organisation is better than Biden's. I don't think it's impossible she ends up with a reasonable result.
Videos on train travel in the States are a bit depressing, since they have very long travel times and the interior design is a bit rectilinear. It's too big and too widely spaced to sustain a train culture like the UK.
As for those who criticise Radiohead...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
Jess is in.
Happy New year.
Academia seems quite weak away from Cambridge and Hull. I'd guess that Manchester would be the answer.
I suspect others have asked, but where are your allegiances or wishes for the next leader?
Sir Kier?
There's a debate with far fewer candidates, that's in Iowa, between now and the caucuses. She's well organised. Amy Klobuchar's price is simply too skinny.
https://www.270towin.com/2020-democratic-nomination/iowa-caucus
(Gender, race, sexual orientation - these are all things we don't choose. And it's not acceptable to discriminate on that basis. Music, religion, movies, we should be able to discriminate on.)
As per @NickPalmer’s post just now, someone is perfectly entitled to believe in creationism and indeed go round expressing those views to all to who wish to listen. But a school wishing to employ a science teacher is entitled to say that this is relevant to the job and such views make a person unfit to be a science teacher. If a creationist wanted to be a lavatory cleaner no-one would give a damn. We must not just have the right to criticise other people’s opinions but also take them into account in our decision-making, especially when those opinions are relevant to the decision being taken.
Otherwise the right to claim no discrimination very rapidly turns into a demand that there be no criticism. Criticism is, after all, a form of discrimination.
If the polls remain the same (which of course they won't), then I would expect Buttigieg to beat Sanders in Iowa.
That being said, there's still a month to go, and a debate with far fewer candidates. The attack on Iran probably plays into Sanders hands too. So, we'll see.
The tolerance we extend to all sorts of fruits and nutcakes (maybe I'm one) isn't a suspension of wisdom.
If you believe in something silly then you deserve and expect to be told that it's silly.
PS Commenting on the thread not Cyclefree
Buttigieg has three times the number of field offices (27) in Iowa than Sanders (9).
Klobuchar, Biden and Warren all have better ground games in Iowa than Sanders.
For something Scottish they should choose a classical design to reflect Scotland's 300 year love affair with classicism. Starting just across the road:
Ending up in the 1950s with the National Library. What classicism means in the 21st century, I'm not sure:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/12/us/politics/democratic-candidates-campaigns.html
I try to stick to this with people whose views are repellent - e.g. I discovered when I was ruynning an environmental campaign that one of the key campaign workers was a BNP member (someone leaked the membership list). He wasn't expressing his views in the context of what we were working on, so I decided it was none of my business.
All the signs are the general election is moving to a Trump v Sanders contest and the biggest ideological divide since Nixon v McGovern
I want to like Winchester, but I've found it to be a cultural non-entity. Admittedly on little evidence.
Salisbury seems much better, with perhaps a similar background.
The person who was getting married made an unfortunate error later. He had met his bride through a rugby club, so he named all the tables after positions on the rugby field. He referred to this in his speech later, saying we could probably guess how they met. At this point his new teenage stepson piped up that his table had been called ‘hooker...’
But that doesn't change the fact that Sanders doesn't have people in rural areas. When the caucus comes around, and forty people gather in a chilly church hall, there will be two Buttigieg organisers, one Warren one, and probably a Biden and a Klobuchar one. He has fewer offices, and fewer paid staffers than 2016.
I would expect that Sanders will do exceptionally well in urban Iowa, and around the universities. I would expect him to do much less well in conservative, rural Iowa.
Thanks for the comments, all. I didn't know Cheltenham had a university! The guy does want to live in the south for family reasons. Does anyone know Southampton at all?
On the leadership question, I'm keeping an open mind at present. Let's hear what the candidates have to say.