Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Do you know, I kind of give up. I had no idea whether he was straight, gay or bi and to be honest I hadn't thought about it. There is the whole assume-straight-until-proven-otherwise heuristic but so many people have come out as non-straight that these days I just don't bother guessing.
Isn't the more obvious point: why should we care? Either way?
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
FWIW Jo Swinson is a Humanist - a pretty vague belief system which has always struck me as odd - veneration of humanity being to my mind a less than optimally well founded idea because of humanity's absolute dependence upon a world it finds but did not create.
But I still think she is a very good person, has a lot to contribute, and notice that she has (rightly) not come under attack because of a belief/values system some would regard as exotic and weird.
Many people believe humanism to be code for less savoury beliefs.
Do they? Who? and what?
"Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively. ... Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of human freedom and progress. It views humans as solely responsible for the promotion and development of individuals and emphasizes a concern for man in relation to the world.["
With that definition of a humanist it would be hard to think of any person with the exception of extremists, criminals and lunatics who could disagree with it.
Honestly, PBers are weird. You don't believe in God and you don't read Douglas Adams. What do you do with your time, other than post on the intern... Oh, ok. Carry on...
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Do you know, I kind of give up. I had no idea whether he was straight, gay or bi and to be honest I hadn't thought about it. There is the whole assume-straight-until-proven-otherwise heuristic but so many people have come out as non-straight that these days I just don't bother guessing.
One of our sons was Facetiming us as the announcement came on the TV, and my wife said something about no I've got to listen to this et etc and why. My son, who is in his early 50's, remarked that this was one of the worst kept secrets in the world.
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
As an agnostic who is open to religions, I'd point out that the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions have a positive attitude to other religions, even though those other religions have entirely different worship practices.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Hundreds of millions of deaths from religious wars suggest otherwise.
I think the betting markets are underestimating the likely Sinn Féin seat count in tomorrow's election.
Brief summary: Last time SF won 23 seats, on 13.8% of the first-pref votes. The last three opinion polls have them on 24% to 25% this time. That's a pretty chunky increase even if they do slightly underperform that. Now, under the Irish STV system translating vote shares to seats is complicated, and parties have to try to optimise the number of candidates in each of the constituencies (which return 3, 4 or 5 TDs).
When SF made this calculation, they weren't expecting to be doing as well as they now seem to be, so they are standing only 42 candidates: one in each seat except for Cavan-Monaghan, Donegal, Dublin Mid West, and Louth, where they are standing two candidates. They should win two seats in each of those four constituencies. That is 3 gains (they got two in Louth last time).
There are 5 other seats where they have a very good chance making a gain: I reckon Dublin West, Wexford, Mayo, Dublin Bay South, and Meath East all look very likely, based on the fact that in the transfers last time they got close to winning the last seat in each.
Other possible longer shots look to me to be Clare, Longford-Westmeath, Kildare North, and possibly Galway West although that's a complicated one.
My central forecast is 23+3+5 = 31, and the minimum looks to me to be 29. On a good night in those longer-shot constituencies they could max out at around 35.
Bottom line: the 1.73 (PP/BF Sports) or 1.8 (Lad) you can get on SF > 28.5 looks to me a good bet.
If you're feeling more adventurous, some of the constituency bets also look attractive, such as Johnny Mythen in Wexford (1.4 Ladbrokes).
As always, DYOR. Wikipedia has an excellent page for each constituency showing how the vote count stages last time went, so you can see how close SF got to winning a seat.
Single most effective intervention against coronavirus spreading... travellers washing their hands frequently: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/risa.13438 ...Increasing the level of hand cleanliness to 60% at all airports in the world would have a reduction of 69% in the impact of a potential disease spreading. We investigate how those results change for different hand‐washing model parameters and we perform sensitivity analysis of the epidemiological model parameters showing that our results are quite robust with respect to the infectiousness of the disease....
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
As an agnostic who is open to religions, I'd point out that the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions have a positive attitude to other religions, even though those other religions have entirely different worship practices.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Hundreds of millions of deaths from religious wars suggest otherwise.
The shift in opinion by religious officialdom towards co-operation and a degree of fellow-feeling coincides, so far as I can see, with a greater acceptance, in civilised countries anyway, of a non-religious position among social and political leaders.
Well for someone who doesn't think Douglas Adams is his cup of tea your last paragraph could have been written by him!
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is superb, but is somewhat dated now.
The proof God does not exist is from the first book in the 5 book trilogy:
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
There you go. A mind as tortured and tortuous as mine. Exactly why I would be ill advised to go anywhere near his stuff.
You're missing out. Writing at his best, @SeanT sometimes comes across as a reasonable imitation of Douglas Adams. If SeanT has any sense, he will regard that as extremely high praise.
His best book is Last Chance To See, which is a lot less funny and a lot more important. Behind the wit, there's a quiet deep anger coursing through that book.
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Do you know, I kind of give up. I had no idea whether he was straight, gay or bi and to be honest I hadn't thought about it. There is the whole assume-straight-until-proven-otherwise heuristic but so many people have come out as non-straight that these days I just don't bother guessing.
Isn't the more obvious point: why should we care? Either way?
The fact that 7 of top 10 trends on Twitter relate to this proves that people still seem to care an awful lot.
Although that's probably (I hope) because it's interesting celebrity gossip given his profile and family situation , rather than because him being gay is actually newsworthy in and of itself.
EDIT: Anyone else having a 20-second wait between hitting 'edit' and being able to do so? That's a long wait to add a missing apostrophe.
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Do you know, I kind of give up. I had no idea whether he was straight, gay or bi and to be honest I hadn't thought about it. There is the whole assume-straight-until-proven-otherwise heuristic but so many people have come out as non-straight that these days I just don't bother guessing.
One of our sons was Facetiming us as the announcement came on the TV, and my wife said something about no I've got to listen to this et etc and why. My son, who is in his early 50's, remarked that this was one of the worst kept secrets in the world.
As my mind turned to the sterling job Schofield did in the broom cupboard, I googled another famous face from there and was slightly surprised to learn today that Andi Peters has never come out.
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Do you know, I kind of give up. I had no idea whether he was straight, gay or bi and to be honest I hadn't thought about it. There is the whole assume-straight-until-proven-otherwise heuristic but so many people have come out as non-straight that these days I just don't bother guessing.
One of our sons was Facetiming us as the announcement came on the TV, and my wife said something about no I've got to listen to this et etc and why. My son, who is in his early 50's, remarked that this was one of the worst kept secrets in the world.
As my mind turned to the sterling job Schofield did in the broom cupboard, I googled another famous face from there and was slightly surprised to learn today that Andi Peters has never come out.
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
Farron was clearly conflicted over LGBT rights and his voting record on the topic was somewhat erratic, although he seems to have voted more in favour than against.
It isn't inherently illiberal to disapprove of something. The issue comes when you prevent other people doing what they might reasonably want to do.
I found the response to Farron's private beliefs very disturbing. If they were influencing his actions on LGBT rights, fine. You can't obstruct equal marriage rights as the leader of a liberal party. But they clearly weren't.
It was one of the moments that convinced me that combatting religious bigotry (bigotry towards a religious belief, or lack thereof) is just as important as combatting racial and homophobic bigotry.
I think the betting markets are underestimating the likely Sinn Féin seat count in tomorrow's election.
Brief summary: Last time SF won 23 seats, on 13.8% of the first-pref votes. The last three opinion polls have them on 24% to 25% this time. That's a pretty chunky increase even if they do slightly underperform that. Now, under the Irish STV system translating vote shares to seats is complicated, and parties have to try to optimise the number of candidates in each of the constituencies (which return 3, 4 or 5 TDs).
When SF made this calculation, they weren't expecting to be doing as well as they now seem to be, so they are standing only 42 candidates: one in each seat except for Cavan-Monaghan, Donegal, Dublin Mid West, and Louth, where they are standing two candidates. They should win two seats in each of those four constituencies. That is 3 gains (they got two in Louth last time).
There are 5 other seats where they have a very good chance making a gain: I reckon Dublin West, Wexford, Mayo, Dublin Bay South, and Meath East all look very likely, based on the fact that in the transfers last time they got close to winning the last seat in each.
Other possible longer shots look to me to be Clare, Longford-Westmeath, Kildare North, and possibly Galway West although that's a complicated one.
My central forecast is 23+3+5 = 31, and the minimum looks to me to be 29. On a good night in those longer-shot constituencies they could max out at around 35.
Bottom line: the 1.73 (PP/BF Sports) or 1.8 (Lad) you can get on SF > 28.5 looks to me a good bet.
If you're feeling more adventurous, some of the constituency bets also look attractive, such as Johnny Mythen in Wexford (1.4 Ladbrokes).
As always, DYOR. Wikipedia has an excellent page for each constituency showing how the vote count stages last time went, so you can see how close SF got to winning a seat.
Interesting summary, and I suspect that SF will be rather regretting not standing more candidates. I wonder where the second preferences go of those (probably few) of their candidates eliminated reasonably early.
I'm grateful for the Wikipedia reference. Will be useful for comparison purposes on Sunday.
What is the difference between being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong homosexual feelings that you can no longer repress, and being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong feelings for a person of the opposite sex that you can no longer repress?
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
Trump is conflicted because his xenophobia and paranoia make him hate China, but his love of dictatorship and human rights abuses make him like Xi a lot.
I think Trump sees the world as being best run by a select group of Big Boys, with the assumption firmly in place that he is the Biggest, and he has a much greater level of respect for those he considers to be properly worthy of the label "Big Boy" - Xi, Putin, Kim, Duterte, Bolsonaro, and a little bit Macron, oddly - than he does for traditional mainstream democratic politicians. These latter types, far from being Big Boys, are in his mind known as "Pussies" - or if female, well probably still pussies, bearing in mind past disclosures. Begs the urgent and important question for us here. Boris Johnson. In Trumperland what is he? Is our "Boris" a Big Boy or a Pussy?
Well for someone who doesn't think Douglas Adams is his cup of tea your last paragraph could have been written by him!
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is superb, but is somewhat dated now.
The proof God does not exist is from the first book in the 5 book trilogy:
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
There you go. A mind as tortured and tortuous as mine. Exactly why I would be ill advised to go anywhere near his stuff.
You're missing out. Writing at his best, @SeanT sometimes comes across as a reasonable imitation of Douglas Adams. If SeanT has any sense, he will regard that as extremely high praise.
His best book is Last Chance To See, which is a lot less funny and a lot more important. Behind the wit, there's a quiet deep anger coursing through that book.
At lunch the other day I quoted Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged insulting every creature in the Universe in Alphabetical Order, and it impressed someone who had never heard of Hitchhiker...
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Yes, there's been plenty of confirmation bias going on today!
(But what's with the "white men" nonsense? You could have just written "straight people", or even just "people".)
I don't find that strange. There is quite an act there and I have some sympathy for some of his over exaggerated views on political correctness and jobs worth. It stuff that gets me.
I guess I come from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs. Our meetings are very small.
I think the betting markets are underestimating the likely Sinn Féin seat count in tomorrow's election.
Brief summary: Last time SF won 23 seats, on 13.8% of the first-pref votes. The last three opinion polls have them on 24% to 25% this time. That's a pretty chunky increase even if they do slightly underperform that. Now, under the Irish STV system translating vote shares to seats is complicated, and parties have to try to optimise the number of candidates in each of the constituencies (which return 3, 4 or 5 TDs).
When SF made this calculation, they weren't expecting to be doing as well as they now seem to be, so they are standing only 42 candidates: one in each seat except for Cavan-Monaghan, Donegal, Dublin Mid West, and Louth, where they are standing two candidates. They should win two seats in each of those four constituencies. That is 3 gains (they got two in Louth last time).
There are 5 other seats where they have a very good chance making a gain: I reckon Dublin West, Wexford, Mayo, Dublin Bay South, and Meath East all look very likely, based on the fact that in the transfers last time they got close to winning the last seat in each.
Other possible longer shots look to me to be Clare, Longford-Westmeath, Kildare North, and possibly Galway West although that's a complicated one.
My central forecast is 23+3+5 = 31, and the minimum looks to me to be 29. On a good night in those longer-shot constituencies they could max out at around 35.
Bottom line: the 1.73 (PP/BF Sports) or 1.8 (Lad) you can get on SF > 28.5 looks to me a good bet.
If you're feeling more adventurous, some of the constituency bets also look attractive, such as Johnny Mythen in Wexford (1.4 Ladbrokes).
As always, DYOR. Wikipedia has an excellent page for each constituency showing how the vote count stages last time went, so you can see how close SF got to winning a seat.
I'm on, though Ladbrokes seems to have limited me to a rather miserly £1.25 on the market.
I think the betting markets are underestimating the likely Sinn Féin seat count in tomorrow's election.
Brief summary: Last time SF won 23 seats, on 13.8% of the first-pref votes. The last three opinion polls have them on 24% to 25% this time. That's a pretty chunky increase even if they do slightly underperform that. Now, under the Irish STV system translating vote shares to seats is complicated, and parties have to try to optimise the number of candidates in each of the constituencies (which return 3, 4 or 5 TDs).
When SF made this calculation, they weren't expecting to be doing as well as they now seem to be, so they are standing only 42 candidates: one in each seat except for Cavan-Monaghan, Donegal, Dublin Mid West, and Louth, where they are standing two candidates. They should win two seats in each of those four constituencies. That is 3 gains (they got two in Louth last time).
There are 5 other seats where they have a very good chance making a gain: I reckon Dublin West, Wexford, Mayo, Dublin Bay South, and Meath East all look very likely, based on the fact that in the transfers last time they got close to winning the last seat in each.
Other possible longer shots look to me to be Clare, Longford-Westmeath, Kildare North, and possibly Galway West although that's a complicated one.
My central forecast is 23+3+5 = 31, and the minimum looks to me to be 29. On a good night in those longer-shot constituencies they could max out at around 35.
Bottom line: the 1.73 (PP/BF Sports) or 1.8 (Lad) you can get on SF > 28.5 looks to me a good bet.
If you're feeling more adventurous, some of the constituency bets also look attractive, such as Johnny Mythen in Wexford (1.4 Ladbrokes).
As always, DYOR. Wikipedia has an excellent page for each constituency showing how the vote count stages last time went, so you can see how close SF got to winning a seat.
Thank you, Richard. It's compelling. I will not be "DYOR", I will be lumping on SF to win over 30 seats on Betfair at anything above 2.3.
I think a candidate who said Christians and Jews were kafirs, but who didn't explain why, and had a 50/50 voting record on protecting Jews, would also have a hard time. And lots of UK Christians come from a very different place to Bible-believing evangelicals.
What is the difference between being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong homosexual feelings that you can no longer repress, and being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong feelings for a person of the opposite sex that you can no longer repress?
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
I think going from gay to straight would be seen as being in denial at best, and a betrayal at worst.
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
As an agnostic who is open to religions, I'd point out that the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions have a positive attitude to other religions, even though those other religions have entirely different worship practices.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Hundreds of millions of deaths from religious wars suggest otherwise.
Sorry to drag the discussion on but, assuming there is no God for a moment, religious wars are 100% caused by those very humans that humanists think so highly of, and religion is 100% a human phenomenon just as much as liberalism, progress and same sex marriage. 'Religious' wars are human wars.
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
Farron was clearly conflicted over LGBT rights and his voting record on the topic was somewhat erratic, although he seems to have voted more in favour than against.
It isn't inherently illiberal to disapprove of something. The issue comes when you prevent other people doing what they might reasonably want to do.
What is the difference between being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong homosexual feelings that you can no longer repress, and being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong feelings for a person of the opposite sex that you can no longer repress?
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
In the dear dead departed days of Friends Reunited a local worthy, married, two children, pillar of the community etc found his teenage sweetheart again and ran off with her.
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
Farron was clearly conflicted over LGBT rights and his voting record on the topic was somewhat erratic, although he seems to have voted more in favour than against.
It isn't inherently illiberal to disapprove of something. The issue comes when you prevent other people doing what they might reasonably want to do.
Like leaving the EU?
Or remaining in it?
Personally, I was more than happy for you to leave the EU, but you forced me to too.
Actually, I find myself broadly in sympathy with RLB on an issue (yes, I’m shocked myself).
I would just make two modifications to her proposal:
(1) Companies should voluntarily sign up to such a charter, or put in their contracts (as they’ve done in London for the living wage) and it shouldn’t be prohibited by statute - some firms must communicate out of hours (2) I’d draw the boundaries of the charter from 9pm to 6am (a standing 9 hour break) unless exempted by role/duty due to necessary 24 hour working
This has a big impact on mental health and an ‘always on’ culture, so some guidelines do need to be agreed upon otherwise - in the absence of very strong leadership- the most workaholic person will always win.
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
Farron was clearly conflicted over LGBT rights and his voting record on the topic was somewhat erratic, although he seems to have voted more in favour than against.
It isn't inherently illiberal to disapprove of something. The issue comes when you prevent other people doing what they might reasonably want to do.
Like leaving the EU?
As long as it doesn't constrain affect my reasonable desire to stay in the EU and continue to have freedom of movement etc, which I point out are liberties, yes, leaving the EU is a perfectly liberal thing to do.
I used to believe. Struggled hard to square my beliefs with what I saw on a daily basis. Then decided I didn't 'believe' any more and everything fell into place.
Concisely put. And with a certain "settled status" that I will not attempt to jostle with any more talk of troubled minds filled with a mighty dread of the Void.
What is the difference between being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong homosexual feelings that you can no longer repress, and being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong feelings for a person of the opposite sex that you can no longer repress?
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
With respect to celebrity morality, that's not strictly true: a celebrity getting a divorce because of an opposite-sex affair isn't as castigated today as they would have been in the past.
People apply different standards to slebs than they do to normal people - see also differential drug punishment, more lax employment standards, etc. I don't like the inequality that implies - your local cocaine dealer will go down to a long stretch but Michael Gove is in Government - but it seems to be the case.
Actually, I find myself broadly in sympathy with RLB on an issue (yes, I’m shocked myself).
I would just make two modifications to her proposal:
(1) Companies should voluntarily sign up to such a charter, or put in their contracts (as they’ve done in London for the living wage) and it shouldn’t be prohibited by statute - some firms must communicate out of hours (2) I’d draw the boundaries of the charter from 9pm to 6am (a standing 9 hour break) unless exempted by role/duty due to necessary 24 hour working
This has a big impact on mental health and an ‘always on’ culture, so some guidelines do need to be agreed upon otherwise - in the absence of very strong leadership- the most workaholic person will always win.
I’d also draw equivalent rules around disturbing people on annual leave, unless it’s a small SME or a genuine emergency (which doesn’t include someone being so disorganised they forgot to ask for your latest CV or signature before you went away on leave)
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
As an agnostic who is open to religions, I'd point out that the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions have a positive attitude to other religions, even though those other religions have entirely different worship practices.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Hundreds of millions of deaths from religious wars suggest otherwise.
Sorry to drag the discussion on but, assuming there is no God for a moment, religious wars are 100% caused by those very humans that humanists think so highly of, and religion is 100% a human phenomenon just as much as liberalism, progress and same sex marriage. 'Religious' wars are human wars.
Of course I dont blame god for them but the extremely powerful human office holders of organised religions. Most humans including most who have been killed didnt cause the problems or have much say in the matter, so I would see the responsibility lying with organised religion rather than humans generally, but not God (unless God really did instruct them to kill non believers etc).
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
As an agnostic who is open to religions, I'd point out that the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions have a positive attitude to other religions, even though those other religions have entirely different worship practices.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Hundreds of millions of deaths from religious wars suggest otherwise.
Sorry but that's just beyond ignorant, and puts you firmly in the "irrational hatred of religious people" camp.
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
As an agnostic who is open to religions, I'd point out that the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions have a positive attitude to other religions, even though those other religions have entirely different worship practices.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Hundreds of millions of deaths from religious wars suggest otherwise.
Sorry but that's just beyond ignorant, and puts you firmly in the "irrational hatred of religious people" camp.
I dont have an issue with religious people, I will try and hold organised religion responsible for its actions, just as I would any other institution.
What is the difference between being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong homosexual feelings that you can no longer repress, and being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong feelings for a person of the opposite sex that you can no longer repress?
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
The key bit, like with homosexuality in the past, is that family and societal pressures are such that someone doesn't feel able to declare their true love.
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Yes, there's been plenty of confirmation bias going on today!
(But what's with the "white men" nonsense? You could have just written "straight people", or even just "people".)
Because that's my perception of who has been advancing that argument, in the main. I'm quite sure there are exceptions.
What is the difference between being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong homosexual feelings that you can no longer repress, and being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong feelings for a person of the opposite sex that you can no longer repress?
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
He has said he’s gay, not that he has strong homosexual feelings towards anyone. Being gay is not a choice. It’s just what you are.
Well for someone who doesn't think Douglas Adams is his cup of tea your last paragraph could have been written by him!
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is superb, but is somewhat dated now.
The proof God does not exist is from the first book in the 5 book trilogy:
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
There you go. A mind as tortured and tortuous as mine. Exactly why I would be ill advised to go anywhere near his stuff.
You're missing out. Writing at his best, @SeanT sometimes comes across as a reasonable imitation of Douglas Adams. If SeanT has any sense, he will regard that as extremely high praise.
His best book is Last Chance To See, which is a lot less funny and a lot more important. Behind the wit, there's a quiet deep anger coursing through that book.
Except Douglas Adams didn't discover God via an LSD trip in Regents Park.
What is the difference between being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong homosexual feelings that you can no longer repress, and being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong feelings for a person of the opposite sex that you can no longer repress?
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
The key bit, like with homosexuality in the past, is that family and societal pressures are such that someone doesn't feel able to declare their true love.
But, people can feel confused either way.
The real issue is that sexuality has become politicised now, rather than a genuine (and sometimes tortured) very personal choice, and so its declarations are viewed through that prism.
Actually, I find myself broadly in sympathy with RLB on an issue (yes, I’m shocked myself).
I would just make two modifications to her proposal:
(1) Companies should voluntarily sign up to such a charter, or put in their contracts (as they’ve done in London for the living wage) and it shouldn’t be prohibited by statute - some firms must communicate out of hours (2) I’d draw the boundaries of the charter from 9pm to 6am (a standing 9 hour break) unless exempted by role/duty due to necessary 24 hour working
This has a big impact on mental health and an ‘always on’ culture, so some guidelines do need to be agreed upon otherwise - in the absence of very strong leadership- the most workaholic person will always win.
Becky is fizzing now. Some great ideas recently and some truly insightful comments on a variety of topics. No longer the robot, nothing like, she's blossoming, totally her own woman. Unfortunately, a la Keegan and Brooking all those years ago, I think it's too little, too late. Starmer looks impregnable to me and on the slight chance he can be beaten I think Nandy is more likely to provide the shock.
Betfair IMO is right but I would swap the outsiders around -
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
As an agnostic who is open to religions, I'd point out that the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions have a positive attitude to other religions, even though those other religions have entirely different worship practices.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Hundreds of millions of deaths from religious wars suggest otherwise.
Sorry but that's just beyond ignorant, and puts you firmly in the "irrational hatred of religious people" camp.
Seems a valid point to me. I think the "positive attitude to other religions" stuff is a rather recent and local development. Are you saying that the crusades never actually happened, for instance?
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Yes, there's been plenty of confirmation bias going on today!
(But what's with the "white men" nonsense? You could have just written "straight people", or even just "people".)
Because that's my perception of who has been advancing that argument, in the main. I'm quite sure there are exceptions.
OK, but it does undermine your very good point about the stupid assumptions that people make about other people.
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Yes, there's been plenty of confirmation bias going on today!
(But what's with the "white men" nonsense? You could have just written "straight people", or even just "people".)
Because that's my perception of who has been advancing that argument, in the main. I'm quite sure there are exceptions.
OK, but it does undermine your very good point about the stupid assumptions that people make about other people.
Actually, I find myself broadly in sympathy with RLB on an issue (yes, I’m shocked myself).
I would just make two modifications to her proposal:
(1) Companies should voluntarily sign up to such a charter, or put in their contracts (as they’ve done in London for the living wage) and it shouldn’t be prohibited by statute - some firms must communicate out of hours (2) I’d draw the boundaries of the charter from 9pm to 6am (a standing 9 hour break) unless exempted by role/duty due to necessary 24 hour working
This has a big impact on mental health and an ‘always on’ culture, so some guidelines do need to be agreed upon otherwise - in the absence of very strong leadership- the most workaholic person will always win.
I’d also draw equivalent rules around disturbing people on annual leave, unless it’s a small SME or a genuine emergency (which doesn’t include someone being so disorganised they forgot to ask for your latest CV or signature before you went away on leave)
The best thing we could do in this space is to require companies to estimate the genuine working hours and have to disclose it in every job advert or recruitment consultancy pitch. Along with salary. If companies repeatedly misrepresent this then the government should publicly shame them.
What is the difference between being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong homosexual feelings that you can no longer repress, and being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong feelings for a person of the opposite sex that you can no longer repress?
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
He has said he’s gay, not that he has strong homosexual feelings towards anyone. Being gay is not a choice. It’s just what you are.
Who says I am talking about Phillip Schofield in particular? I am posing a hypothetical question
Actually, I find myself broadly in sympathy with RLB on an issue (yes, I’m shocked myself).
I would just make two modifications to her proposal:
(1) Companies should voluntarily sign up to such a charter, or put in their contracts (as they’ve done in London for the living wage) and it shouldn’t be prohibited by statute - some firms must communicate out of hours (2) I’d draw the boundaries of the charter from 9pm to 6am (a standing 9 hour break) unless exempted by role/duty due to necessary 24 hour working
This has a big impact on mental health and an ‘always on’ culture, so some guidelines do need to be agreed upon otherwise - in the absence of very strong leadership- the most workaholic person will always win.
Surely this is the realm of what should be best practice for large companies rather than the law. Most of the country dont get work texts or calls between 9pm and 6am anyway and of those that do a significant proportion will be in jobs where that is required.
A side point would be I very much doubt she expects it to apply to Labour politicians and party employees if she became leader and there was a breaking news story. Just as many Labour politicians have been happy to use unpaid interns, zero hour contracts and short notice redundancies whilst criticising business for doing the same.
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
FWIW Jo Swinson is a Humanist - a pretty vague belief system which has always struck me as odd - veneration of humanity being to my mind a less than optimally well founded idea because of humanity's absolute dependence upon a world it finds but did not create.
But I still think she is a very good person, has a lot to contribute, and notice that she has (rightly) not come under attack because of a belief/values system some would regard as exotic and weird.
Wondering if the Derek Mackay imbroglio could cause some significant collateral damage in SNP ranks. It seems he was banned from drinking at SNP conferences (of which he was convener) and other people are coming out of the woodwork. Who knew what and when? Scottish media is rather reduced these days so scope for investigatory activity limited but, who knows what a few well judged questions may elicit.
It will be forgotten very soon, more likely the Salmond trial will cause them big issues.
Mr. Gabs, doesn't necessarily work with modern jobs, though.
Suppose someone has a set list of assignments to write and a lot of leeway when they do it. You can't impose a 9-5 style culture on a job that doesn't fit.
Actually, I find myself broadly in sympathy with RLB on an issue (yes, I’m shocked myself).
I would just make two modifications to her proposal:
(1) Companies should voluntarily sign up to such a charter, or put in their contracts (as they’ve done in London for the living wage) and it shouldn’t be prohibited by statute - some firms must communicate out of hours (2) I’d draw the boundaries of the charter from 9pm to 6am (a standing 9 hour break) unless exempted by role/duty due to necessary 24 hour working
This has a big impact on mental health and an ‘always on’ culture, so some guidelines do need to be agreed upon otherwise - in the absence of very strong leadership- the most workaholic person will always win.
I’d also draw equivalent rules around disturbing people on annual leave, unless it’s a small SME or a genuine emergency (which doesn’t include someone being so disorganised they forgot to ask for your latest CV or signature before you went away on leave)
The best thing we could do in this space is to require companies to estimate the genuine working hours and have to disclose it in every job advert or recruitment consultancy pitch. Along with salary. If companies repeatedly misrepresent this then the government should publicly shame them.
Working hours in many roles are down to individuals. Ive managed people with similar qualifications and backgrounds but one could do the same job to the same quality in 35 hrs a week, another took 60 hrs a week, most were taking 40-45hrs. The difference was time management which is both hard to interview for at graduate level and hard to teach (for me at least).
Its great we are becoming more aware of these issues as a society but business cant do everything and be effective.
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
As an agnostic who is open to religions, I'd point out that the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions have a positive attitude to other religions, even though those other religions have entirely different worship practices.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Hundreds of millions of deaths from religious wars suggest otherwise.
Sorry but that's just beyond ignorant, and puts you firmly in the "irrational hatred of religious people" camp.
Seems a valid point to me. I think the "positive attitude to other religions" stuff is a rather recent and local development. Are you saying that the crusades never actually happened, for instance?
It's invalid on so many levels.
Firstly the discussion was about officialdom in organised religions today, not in the past. Secondly, non-religious ideologies are no more (and possibly slightly less) likely to be peaceful than religions ones. Thirdly, religious ideology being evoked in a war rarely means that the war was caused by religion, rather than hunger for power/land/resources/revenge/freedom. Fourthly, even violence that is genuinely caused partly by religious extremism (e.g. Islamist terrorism) is typically condemned by most officialdom in that religion.
Those of us who are not religious have a responsibility to stand up against this kind of nonsense, just as straight people have a responsibility to stand up against homophobia.
What is the difference between being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong homosexual feelings that you can no longer repress, and being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong feelings for a person of the opposite sex that you can no longer repress?
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
If you cannot see the difference you need to get a Janet and John book to explain things for you.
What is the difference between being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong homosexual feelings that you can no longer repress, and being married for 25 years, having a couple of kids then announcing you have strong feelings for a person of the opposite sex that you can no longer repress?
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
If you cannot see the difference you need to get a Janet and John book to explain things for you.
Actually, I find myself broadly in sympathy with RLB on an issue (yes, I’m shocked myself).
I would just make two modifications to her proposal:
(1) Companies should voluntarily sign up to such a charter, or put in their contracts (as they’ve done in London for the living wage) and it shouldn’t be prohibited by statute - some firms must communicate out of hours (2) I’d draw the boundaries of the charter from 9pm to 6am (a standing 9 hour break) unless exempted by role/duty due to necessary 24 hour working
This has a big impact on mental health and an ‘always on’ culture, so some guidelines do need to be agreed upon otherwise - in the absence of very strong leadership- the most workaholic person will always win.
I’d also draw equivalent rules around disturbing people on annual leave
I was once pursued to a small kiosk with a telephone on a Greek Island. "Can you hold?" "No, he can speak to me now or not at all"
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
As an agnostic who is open to religions, I'd point out that the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions have a positive attitude to other religions, even though those other religions have entirely different worship practices.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Hundreds of millions of deaths from religious wars suggest otherwise.
Sorry but that's just beyond ignorant, and puts you firmly in the "irrational hatred of religious people" camp.
Seems a valid point to me. I think the "positive attitude to other religions" stuff is a rather recent and local development. Are you saying that the crusades never actually happened, for instance?
It's invalid on so many levels.
Firstly the discussion was about officialdom in organised religions today, not in the past. Secondly, non-religious ideologies are no more (and possibly slightly less) likely to be peaceful than religions ones. Thirdly, religious ideology being evoked in a war rarely means that the war was caused by religion, rather than hunger for power/land/resources/revenge/freedom. Fourthly, even violence that is genuinely caused partly by religious extremism (e.g. Islamist terrorism) is typically condemned by most officialdom in that religion.
Those of us who are not religious have a responsibility to stand up against this kind of nonsense, just as straight people have a responsibility to stand up against homophobia.
The reality is there are several religious conflicts ongoing today, Shia vs Sunni across the middle east, Islam v Judaism in Israel, Buddhism v Islam in Burma.
I have criticised China for its non religious totalitarian treatment of the uighurs and falun gong so dont see how I am discriminating against religion simply by pointing out that many wars are caused by organised religion, just as they can be by other malign institutions.
I think the betting markets are underestimating the likely Sinn Féin seat count in tomorrow's election.
Brief summary: Last time SF won 23 seats, on 13.8% of the first-pref votes. The last three opinion polls have them on 24% to 25% this time. That's a pretty chunky increase even if they do slightly underperform that. Now, under the Irish STV system translating vote shares to seats is complicated, and parties have to try to optimise the number of candidates in each of the constituencies (which return 3, 4 or 5 TDs).
When SF made this calculation, they weren't expecting to be doing as well as they now seem to be, so they are standing only 42 candidates: one in each seat except for Cavan-Monaghan, Donegal, Dublin Mid West, and Louth, where they are standing two candidates. They should win two seats in each of those four constituencies. That is 3 gains (they got two in Louth last time).
There are 5 other seats where they have a very good chance making a gain: I reckon Dublin West, Wexford, Mayo, Dublin Bay South, and Meath East all look very likely, based on the fact that in the transfers last time they got close to winning the last seat in each.
Other possible longer shots look to me to be Clare, Longford-Westmeath, Kildare North, and possibly Galway West although that's a complicated one.
My central forecast is 23+3+5 = 31, and the minimum looks to me to be 29. On a good night in those longer-shot constituencies they could max out at around 35.
Bottom line: the 1.73 (PP/BF Sports) or 1.8 (Lad) you can get on SF > 28.5 looks to me a good bet.
If you're feeling more adventurous, some of the constituency bets also look attractive, such as Johnny Mythen in Wexford (1.4 Ladbrokes).
As always, DYOR. Wikipedia has an excellent page for each constituency showing how the vote count stages last time went, so you can see how close SF got to winning a seat.
I'm on!
Betfair Sportsbook allowed me £4.81. Untold riches.
I think the betting markets are underestimating the likely Sinn Féin seat count in tomorrow's election.
Brief summary: Last time SF won 23 seats, on 13.8% of the first-pref votes. The last three opinion polls have them on 24% to 25% this time. That's a pretty chunky increase even if they do slightly underperform that. Now, under the Irish STV system translating vote shares to seats is complicated, and parties have to try to optimise the number of candidates in each of the constituencies (which return 3, 4 or 5 TDs).
When SF made this calculation, they weren't expecting to be doing as well as they now seem to be, so they are standing only 42 candidates: one in each seat except for Cavan-Monaghan, Donegal, Dublin Mid West, and Louth, where they are standing two candidates. They should win two seats in each of those four constituencies. That is 3 gains (they got two in Louth last time).
There are 5 other seats where they have a very good chance making a gain: I reckon Dublin West, Wexford, Mayo, Dublin Bay South, and Meath East all look very likely, based on the fact that in the transfers last time they got close to winning the last seat in each.
Other possible longer shots look to me to be Clare, Longford-Westmeath, Kildare North, and possibly Galway West although that's a complicated one.
My central forecast is 23+3+5 = 31, and the minimum looks to me to be 29. On a good night in those longer-shot constituencies they could max out at around 35.
Bottom line: the 1.73 (PP/BF Sports) or 1.8 (Lad) you can get on SF > 28.5 looks to me a good bet.
If you're feeling more adventurous, some of the constituency bets also look attractive, such as Johnny Mythen in Wexford (1.4 Ladbrokes).
As always, DYOR. Wikipedia has an excellent page for each constituency showing how the vote count stages last time went, so you can see how close SF got to winning a seat.
I'm on!
Betfair Sportsbook allowed me £4.81. Untold riches.
The reality is there are several religious conflicts ongoing today, Shia vs Sunni across the middle east, Islam v Judaism in Israel, Buddhism v Islam in Burma.
I have criticised China for its non religious totalitarian treatment of the uighurs and falun gong so dont see how I am discriminating against religion simply by pointing out that many wars are caused by organised religion, just as they can be by other malign institutions.
OK, that's a more reasonable comment. It was the laziness of the religious wars one-liner in the middle of a hitherto worthwhile discussion that triggered me. Even so, there needs to be a distinction between (1) conflicts caused by religion and (2) conflicts with other causes, in which the sides can be defined by religion.
For example, the cause of the Israel/Palestine conflict was the displacement of one group of people to make room for another displaced and persecuted group of people, and the understandable sense of injustice that both sides have. Religion strongly influences the geopolitics (the religious significance of the location, and the attitude of Israel's neighbours), and adds a distinction between the two groups, but the overwhelming majority of people who fight in that conflict do so for secular reasons. It is very like Northern Ireland in that regard.
Of the conflicts you mention, the only one where the label of a religious conflict (defined by the present day motivations, not the historical context) is really defensible is the Shia vs Sunni conflict. At least, I don't know enough details about it to say otherwise. I suspect that it has a large element of a power struggle, in which religion is used as an excuse.
But even when you look at classic examples of religious conflicts like Afghanistan, you find that the truth is far more complex. Mini-skirts were normal in Kabul circa 1970. Then the communists took over and invited the Soviets in, who proceeded to go round the country teaching them that religion was evil. Then they responded to rebellion by destroying villages and creating mines that were designed to attract and maim children (thereby forcing people to give up the fight to look after their disabled kids). The day that the tide turned against the communists, the chant of Allahu Akbar rose up from houses across Kabul. The chant was a rejection of their rulers, who happened to define themselves as being against religion. From that point on, being religious was associated with being against the communists. So the conflict caused the religiosity, at least as much as the other way around.
Interesting he's come out as gay and not bisexual, being married for over 25 years with two daughters and all...
Surely the fact he has intimate relations with the opposite sex does imply he is bisexual - at least in the wider sense?!
Who wants to know anyway or who cares
I agree its irrelevant.. but the wider public are not always as understanding. Look at that US woman who wanted to take her vote back when she realised Buttigieg was gay...
Interesting he's come out as gay and not bisexual, being married for over 25 years with two daughters and all...
Surely the fact he has intimate relations with the opposite sex does imply he is bisexual - at least in the wider sense?!
Who wants to know anyway or who cares
I agree its irrelevant.. but the wider public are not always as understanding. Look at that US woman who wanted to take her vote back when she realised Buttigieg was gay...
To be honest it has been 100% coverage on Sky virtually all day
I have no problem with anyone's sexuality and it should not be such a huge story
But media obsessing over celebrities or US politics seems the norm, while most people just get on with their lives
Actually, I find myself broadly in sympathy with RLB on an issue (yes, I’m shocked myself).
I would just make two modifications to her proposal:
(1) Companies should voluntarily sign up to such a charter, or put in their contracts (as they’ve done in London for the living wage) and it shouldn’t be prohibited by statute - some firms must communicate out of hours (2) I’d draw the boundaries of the charter from 9pm to 6am (a standing 9 hour break) unless exempted by role/duty due to necessary 24 hour working
This has a big impact on mental health and an ‘always on’ culture, so some guidelines do need to be agreed upon otherwise - in the absence of very strong leadership- the most workaholic person will always win.
I’d also draw equivalent rules around disturbing people on annual leave, unless it’s a small SME or a genuine emergency (which doesn’t include someone being so disorganised they forgot to ask for your latest CV or signature before you went away on leave)
I prefer to be disturbed. Far rather get a text message than a fuck up upon my return that could have been avoided.
Comments
My son, who is in his early 50's, remarked that this was one of the worst kept secrets in the world.
I think the betting markets are underestimating the likely Sinn Féin seat count in tomorrow's election.
Brief summary: Last time SF won 23 seats, on 13.8% of the first-pref votes. The last three opinion polls have them on 24% to 25% this time. That's a pretty chunky increase even if they do slightly underperform that. Now, under the Irish STV system translating vote shares to seats is complicated, and parties have to try to optimise the number of candidates in each of the constituencies (which return 3, 4 or 5 TDs).
When SF made this calculation, they weren't expecting to be doing as well as they now seem to be, so they are standing only 42 candidates: one in each seat except for Cavan-Monaghan, Donegal, Dublin Mid West, and Louth, where they are standing two candidates. They should win two seats in each of those four constituencies. That is 3 gains (they got two in Louth last time).
There are 5 other seats where they have a very good chance making a gain: I reckon Dublin West, Wexford, Mayo, Dublin Bay South, and Meath East all look very likely, based on the fact that in the transfers last time they got close to winning the last seat in each.
Other possible longer shots look to me to be Clare, Longford-Westmeath, Kildare North, and possibly Galway West although that's a complicated one.
My central forecast is 23+3+5 = 31, and the minimum looks to me to be 29. On a good night in those longer-shot constituencies they could max out at around 35.
Bottom line: the 1.73 (PP/BF Sports) or 1.8 (Lad) you can get on SF > 28.5 looks to me a good bet.
If you're feeling more adventurous, some of the constituency bets also look attractive, such as Johnny Mythen in Wexford (1.4 Ladbrokes).
As always, DYOR. Wikipedia has an excellent page for each constituency showing how the vote count stages last time went, so you can see how close SF got to winning a seat.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/risa.13438
...Increasing the level of hand cleanliness to 60% at all airports in the world would have a reduction of 69% in the impact of a potential disease spreading. We investigate how those results change for different hand‐washing model parameters and we perform sensitivity analysis of the epidemiological model parameters showing that our results are quite robust with respect to the infectiousness of the disease....
His best book is Last Chance To See, which is a lot less funny and a lot more important. Behind the wit, there's a quiet deep anger coursing through that book.
Although that's probably (I hope) because it's interesting celebrity gossip given his profile and family situation , rather than because him being gay is actually newsworthy in and of itself.
EDIT: Anyone else having a 20-second wait between hitting 'edit' and being able to do so? That's a long wait to add a missing apostrophe.
Hang on, I saw him on GMTV yesterday
It was one of the moments that convinced me that combatting religious bigotry (bigotry towards a religious belief, or lack thereof) is just as important as combatting racial and homophobic bigotry.
I'm grateful for the Wikipedia reference. Will be useful for comparison purposes on Sunday.
Seems to me that the difference is you get a load of sympathy for the former and a shit load of abuse for the latter
(But what's with the "white men" nonsense? You could have just written "straight people", or even just "people".)
I guess I come from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs. Our meetings are very small.
Personally, I was more than happy for you to leave the EU, but you forced me to too.
I would just make two modifications to her proposal:
(1) Companies should voluntarily sign up to such a charter, or put in their contracts (as they’ve done in London for the living wage) and it shouldn’t be prohibited by statute - some firms must communicate out of hours
(2) I’d draw the boundaries of the charter from 9pm to 6am (a standing 9 hour break) unless exempted by role/duty due to necessary 24 hour working
This has a big impact on mental health and an ‘always on’ culture, so some guidelines do need to be agreed upon otherwise - in the absence of very strong leadership- the most workaholic person will always win.
People apply different standards to slebs than they do to normal people - see also differential drug punishment, more lax employment standards, etc. I don't like the inequality that implies - your local cocaine dealer will go down to a long stretch but Michael Gove is in Government - but it seems to be the case.
The key bit, like with homosexuality in the past, is that family and societal pressures are such that someone doesn't feel able to declare their true love.
The real issue is that sexuality has become politicised now, rather than a genuine (and sometimes tortured) very personal choice, and so its declarations are viewed through that prism.
This is appalling. If you don't have sufficient evidence of your rape, you are not allowed to disclose it in a private text message to a friend.
Betfair IMO is right but I would swap the outsiders around -
KS 1.2
RLB 12
LN 15
I think he's a good addition to the Lords.
You can say and 'disclose' what you like, but if you defame people then you are able to be held to account for defamation.
Disclosure seems to have got a little beyond a PM to a friend.
A side point would be I very much doubt she expects it to apply to Labour politicians and party employees if she became leader and there was a breaking news story. Just as many Labour politicians have been happy to use unpaid interns, zero hour contracts and short notice redundancies whilst criticising business for doing the same.
Suppose someone has a set list of assignments to write and a lot of leeway when they do it. You can't impose a 9-5 style culture on a job that doesn't fit.
And work isn't necessarily employer/employee.
Its great we are becoming more aware of these issues as a society but business cant do everything and be effective.
Firstly the discussion was about officialdom in organised religions today, not in the past. Secondly, non-religious ideologies are no more (and possibly slightly less) likely to be peaceful than religions ones. Thirdly, religious ideology being evoked in a war rarely means that the war was caused by religion, rather than hunger for power/land/resources/revenge/freedom. Fourthly, even violence that is genuinely caused partly by religious extremism (e.g. Islamist terrorism) is typically condemned by most officialdom in that religion.
Those of us who are not religious have a responsibility to stand up against this kind of nonsense, just as straight people have a responsibility to stand up against homophobia.
to explain things for you.
I have criticised China for its non religious totalitarian treatment of the uighurs and falun gong so dont see how I am discriminating against religion simply by pointing out that many wars are caused by organised religion, just as they can be by other malign institutions.
Betfair Sportsbook allowed me £4.81. Untold riches.
For example, the cause of the Israel/Palestine conflict was the displacement of one group of people to make room for another displaced and persecuted group of people, and the understandable sense of injustice that both sides have. Religion strongly influences the geopolitics (the religious significance of the location, and the attitude of Israel's neighbours), and adds a distinction between the two groups, but the overwhelming majority of people who fight in that conflict do so for secular reasons. It is very like Northern Ireland in that regard.
Of the conflicts you mention, the only one where the label of a religious conflict (defined by the present day motivations, not the historical context) is really defensible is the Shia vs Sunni conflict. At least, I don't know enough details about it to say otherwise. I suspect that it has a large element of a power struggle, in which religion is used as an excuse.
But even when you look at classic examples of religious conflicts like Afghanistan, you find that the truth is far more complex. Mini-skirts were normal in Kabul circa 1970. Then the communists took over and invited the Soviets in, who proceeded to go round the country teaching them that religion was evil. Then they responded to rebellion by destroying villages and creating mines that were designed to attract and maim children (thereby forcing people to give up the fight to look after their disabled kids). The day that the tide turned against the communists, the chant of Allahu Akbar rose up from houses across Kabul. The chant was a rejection of their rulers, who happened to define themselves as being against religion. From that point on, being religious was associated with being against the communists. So the conflict caused the religiosity, at least as much as the other way around.
I have no problem with anyone's sexuality and it should not be such a huge story
But media obsessing over celebrities or US politics seems the norm, while most people just get on with their lives