These protests, both here, in europe, and worldwide should give a good insight into just how virolent covid is and if no spikes, it is likely lockdown will be over
And there could be worse ways to end it, if that is the case.
However, it’s much more likely it will lead to a second spike and an even more devastating lockdown.
All lives matter. They are risking far too many of them from both Covid and devastation.
Still the third biggest news story after more than two weeks?
That is not good. If it was going to die away, it would have done so by now.
It's on 6% most-noticed. The crime of the century, the ultimate downfall of Cummings, Boris, Brexit, the universe...
6% noticed it.
Nobody except utter idiots like you is claiming it was the crime of the century. (Incidentally, I note that upthread you finally concede that he broke the regulations, even if you are the last person on Earth who believes his dumb lies about childcare.)
But it should have led to his summary dismissal.
The fact it hasn’t means his story is still running, whereas Duffield’s - which was in many ways equally serious - is not.
(As an aside, if the figures I have seen are correct, County Durham has the highest infection rate of any non-metropolitan area. While I think it probable that has nothing to do with Cummings, it is to put it mildly a most unfortunate coincidence.)
The reason Duffield's story isn't running is because Cummingsgate was a political hit job led by the Blob that hates him for what he did to them in 2016 and 2019. The moment Gardiner and Duffield's far worse transgressions became a story, the Blob ran a million miles in the opposite direction and pretended they'd never heard of lockdown before
It's a theory.
Alternatively, it's because Duffield acknowledged that she was in the wrong and didn't go to absurd contortions to justify her actions. Same way that Bob Seeley's barbeque will be a 12 hour wonder.
“A soft word turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” and all that.
It's interesting watching clueless people argue with David Paton about statistics.
He pushed "Sweden deaths falling fast" constantly despite being told time and time again he was using heavily lagged data.
Oh, that's disappointing. Paton's usually very good with the stats; Sweden's stats, though, should only be viewed as solid from about 10-14 days ago. They're good at getting the information out there; they're just a bit more lagged than the ONS.
I've been watching the Swedish deaths-per-day and they go like this:
Each colour is a different reporting day; I've gone for dashed lines while the data is very incomplete and semi-dashed lines when it's fairly incomplete.
There's a downward trend, but it's certainly not "falling fast" unless you do take the incomplete data as accurate before it's updated.
Halving time of about 35 days, much longer than ours.
I suspect similar to ours now that lockdown is effectively over here.
Are you sure about that? It's still hugely quiet in this area.
There are eg more people planning to go back to work though June / July, but it is all being done slowly and carefully.
Shops are not open yet, but within the next fortnight most will be.
Traffic noticeably busier on my way to work and back now. Much the same now as school holiday traffic in the mornings.
Reasonable efforts at mask wearing and social distancing at the Leicester BLM protest.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
These protests, both here, in europe, and worldwide should give a good insight into just how virulent covid is and if no spikes, it is likely lockdown will be over
I think my wife and I will remain in voluntary lockdown anyway for the next two to three weeks
That`s interesting BigG - previously you had talked about staying in voluntary lockdown for, I think, 3/4 years to your 60th wedding anniversary. Does this reflect a slight decrease in concern?
Actually, those come out of the pro rata budget allocated under Barnett. We just spend it differently to the English. (And much of the prescriptions cost comes out of the savings made on eliminating the bureaucracy.)
In 2018/19, public spending per person in the UK as a whole was £9,584. In England, it was £9,296 (3% below the UK average). This compares with:
Scotland: £11,247 (17% above the UK average) Wales: £10,656 (11% above the UK average) Northern Ireland £11,590 (21% above the UK average).
Scotland has more money to spend and can afford these additional choices primarily because it is heavily subsidised, despite being reasonably well-off. Scottish per capita GDP, at £29,660 according to the most recently published figures, exceeds that of all other comparable statistical regions of the UK outside the south-eastern quadrant of England.
The continued existence of the defective Barnett formula is not, of course, Scotland's fault in any way, shape or form, but this doesn't change the fact that it exists. My original point wasn't to have a pop at Scotland but to dig around the rotten foundations of the Union.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Still the third biggest news story after more than two weeks?
That is not good. If it was going to die away, it would have done so by now.
It's on 6% most-noticed. The crime of the century, the ultimate downfall of Cummings, Boris, Brexit, the universe...
6% noticed it.
Nobody except utter idiots like you is claiming it was the crime of the century. (Incidentally, I note that upthread you finally concede that he broke the regulations, even if you are the last person on Earth who believes his dumb lies about childcare.)
But it should have led to his summary dismissal.
The fact it hasn’t means his story is still running, whereas Duffield’s - which was in many ways equally serious - is not.
(As an aside, if the figures I have seen are correct, County Durham has the highest infection rate of any non-metropolitan area. While I think it probable that has nothing to do with Cummings, it is to put it mildly a most unfortunate coincidence.)
The reason Duffield's story isn't running is because Cummingsgate was a political hit job led by the Blob that hates him for what he did to them in 2016 and 2019. The moment Gardiner and Duffield's far worse transgressions became a story, the Blob ran a million miles in the opposite direction and pretended they'd never heard of lockdown before
It's a theory.
Alternatively, it's because Duffield acknowledged that she was in the wrong and didn't go to absurd contortions to justify her actions. Same way that Bob Seeley's barbeque will be a 12 hour wonder.
“A soft word turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” and all that.
I see at Bob Seeleys lockdown bbq, Ms Oakshott was present, and indicated that she had travelled to her second home on the Island before.
I have a clear conscience about my own visit this week to see grandma.
Still the third biggest news story after more than two weeks?
That is not good. If it was going to die away, it would have done so by now.
It's on 6% most-noticed. The crime of the century, the ultimate downfall of Cummings, Boris, Brexit, the universe...
6% noticed it.
Nobody except utter idiots like you is claiming it was the crime of the century. (Incidentally, I note that upthread you finally concede that he broke the regulations, even if you are the last person on Earth who believes his dumb lies about childcare.)
But it should have led to his summary dismissal.
The fact it hasn’t means his story is still running, whereas Duffield’s - which was in many ways equally serious - is not.
(As an aside, if the figures I have seen are correct, County Durham has the highest infection rate of any non-metropolitan area. While I think it probable that has nothing to do with Cummings, it is to put it mildly a most unfortunate coincidence.)
The reason Duffield's story isn't running is because Cummingsgate was a political hit job led by the Blob that hates him for what he did to them in 2016 and 2019. The moment Gardiner and Duffield's far worse transgressions became a story, the Blob ran a million miles in the opposite direction and pretended they'd never heard of lockdown before
You really are tribal fool. You don’t care about laws, you care about your side. A side that bears a distinctly uncomfortable resemblance to the Corbynistas.
I criticise Duffield. I criticise these protestors. I criticise Cummings.
But you cannot bring yourself to criticise Cummings.
You're a reasonable person; the Blob (lefty/Remainery politicos, media, public sector) are not. I therefore extend them as much consideration and quarter as they extend to me: none.
There was an interesting comment on the radio this morning about the long-term effects of COVID-19. It implied that we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of people with new chronic health problems, some of them quite serious, and many of them will be relatively young people as it's the immune response doing a lot of the damage.
The assumption that being young, fit, and healthy means that COVID-19 is "just like the flu" may prove to be tragically wrong.
The problem is that many people want it to not be an issue so focus solely on the death rates. Derek Draper, for one, does not show up on the death rates.
There was an interesting comment on the radio this morning about the long-term effects of COVID-19. It implied that we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of people with new chronic health problems, some of them quite serious, and many of them will be relative young people as it's the immune response doing a lot of the damage.
The assumption that being young, fit, and healthy means that COVID-19 is "just like the flu" may prove to be tragically wrong.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but i don't think this is widely known.
There are suggestions it can have a devastating effect on the brains of people who haven't even been infected.
Though it hasn't been ruled out that the brains in question may already have been useless even before COVID-19 emerged.
Interestingly, no obvioius reports of large (ifany?) BLM demos in Scotland today - and it's a nice sunny day for many after earlier showers. The appeals by Ms Sturgeon and her SNP and Green and Labour colleagues may have had some impact in terms of people respecting the ongoing ban on large gatherings.
And we are now seeing covid stowaways in the ferries ...
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
Still the third biggest news story after more than two weeks?
That is not good. If it was going to die away, it would have done so by now.
It's on 6% most-noticed. The crime of the century, the ultimate downfall of Cummings, Boris, Brexit, the universe...
6% noticed it.
Nobody except utter idiots like you is claiming it was the crime of the century. (Incidentally, I note that upthread you finally concede that he broke the regulations, even if you are the last person on Earth who believes his dumb lies about childcare.)
But it should have led to his summary dismissal.
The fact it hasn’t means his story is still running, whereas Duffield’s - which was in many ways equally serious - is not.
(As an aside, if the figures I have seen are correct, County Durham has the highest infection rate of any non-metropolitan area. While I think it probable that has nothing to do with Cummings, it is to put it mildly a most unfortunate coincidence.)
The reason Duffield's story isn't running is because Cummingsgate was a political hit job led by the Blob that hates him for what he did to them in 2016 and 2019. The moment Gardiner and Duffield's far worse transgressions became a story, the Blob ran a million miles in the opposite direction and pretended they'd never heard of lockdown before
You really are tribal fool. You don’t care about laws, you care about your side. A side that bears a distinctly uncomfortable resemblance to the Corbynistas.
I criticise Duffield. I criticise these protestors. I criticise Cummings.
But you cannot bring yourself to criticise Cummings.
You simultaneously argue that Cummings shouldn't be important because he's an idiot, and that he's so important that thousands of people are ignoring the rules because of him.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Crikey - that`s utilitarianism on speed. I think the opposite. B is a racist, A is not. It`s what you believe inside that matters. I do detect a strong utilitarianism on the left, which I think is a mistake.
Edit: now I see why you hate Johnson so much.
Well I'm more making the argument that behaviour counts more than belief. I think it does.
My example is a bit extreme and absolutist. It rejects "I think therefore I am" in favour of "I communicate therefore I am".
Which actually doesn't work because it implies that if somebody removed all of my ability to communicate - "We wish", I hear resounding - then I would be null and void. And of course I wouldn't be. I'd still be a hard left social democrat but a silent one.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
As long as they don't live at home with mum / dad / grandad. As that is exactly how it spread in Northern Italy. All the young folk socialize in Milan in the week, spread it among themselves and then headed back to family home at weekends and killed off nonno.
There was an interesting comment on the radio this morning about the long-term effects of COVID-19. It implied that we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of people with new chronic health problems, some of them quite serious, and many of them will be relative young people as it's the immune response doing a lot of the damage.
The assumption that being young, fit, and healthy means that COVID-19 is "just like the flu" may prove to be tragically wrong.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but i don't think this is widely known.
There are suggestions it can have a devastating effect on the brains of people who haven't even been infected.
Though it hasn't been ruled out that the brains in question may already have been useless even before COVID-19 emerged.
It's certainly causing partial deafness in some - someone here yesterday posted a ref to a very alarming study on people who hadn't even been symptomatic (till they had a hearing test).
These protests, both here, in europe, and worldwide should give a good insight into just how virolent covid is and if no spikes, it is likely lockdown will be over
And there could be worse ways to end it, if that is the case.
However, it’s much more likely it will lead to a second spike and an even more devastating lockdown.
All lives matter. They are risking far too many of them from both Covid and devastation.
Interestingly, no obvioius reports of large (ifany?) BLM demos in Scotland today - and it's a nice sunny day for many after earlier showers. The appeals by Ms Sturgeon and her SNP and Green and Labour colleagues may have had some impact in terms of people respecting the ongoing ban on large gatherings.
And we are now seeing covid stowaways in the ferries ...
These protests, both here, in europe, and worldwide should give a good insight into just how virulent covid is and if no spikes, it is likely lockdown will be over
I think my wife and I will remain in voluntary lockdown anyway for the next two to three weeks
That`s interesting BigG - previously you had talked about staying in voluntary lockdown for, I think, 3/4 years to your 60th wedding anniversary. Does this reflect a slight decrease in concern?
If I did say that, and my memory is not the best, I think I may have been joking !!!
I wouldn't expect Cummings to be a noticed news story this week.
A more interesting comparison would be if the question "do you know who Dominic Cummings is?" had been asked both today and back, say, in March.
I'd guess around 80-90% now know who he is, compared with maybe 10% a couple of months ago. His new-found fame prepares him well for his next appearance in the news. A Spad really shouldn't be so well known.
Timing is also important in respect of Cummings. His actions were right at the start of lockdown, when compliance was pretty much universal. Duffield, Gardiner etc. were much later, when clearly things were slipping. Not an excuse, but an observation.
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
Interestingly, no obvioius reports of large (ifany?) BLM demos in Scotland today - and it's a nice sunny day for many after earlier showers. The appeals by Ms Sturgeon and her SNP and Green and Labour colleagues may have had some impact in terms of people respecting the ongoing ban on large gatherings.
And we are now seeing covid stowaways in the ferries ...
It's interesting watching clueless people argue with David Paton about statistics.
He pushed "Sweden deaths falling fast" constantly despite being told time and time again he was using heavily lagged data.
Oh, that's disappointing. Paton's usually very good with the stats; Sweden's stats, though, should only be viewed as solid from about 10-14 days ago. They're good at getting the information out there; they're just a bit more lagged than the ONS.
I've been watching the Swedish deaths-per-day and they go like this:
Each colour is a different reporting day; I've gone for dashed lines while the data is very incomplete and semi-dashed lines when it's fairly incomplete.
There's a downward trend, but it's certainly not "falling fast" unless you do take the incomplete data as accurate before it's updated.
Halving time of about 35 days, much longer than ours.
I suspect similar to ours now that lockdown is effectively over here.
Are you sure about that? It's still hugely quiet in this area.
There are eg more people planning to go back to work though June / July, but it is all being done slowly and carefully.
Shops are not open yet, but within the next fortnight most will be.
Traffic noticeably busier on my way to work and back now. Much the same now as school holiday traffic in the mornings.
Reasonable efforts at mask wearing and social distancing at the Leicester BLM protest.
Falls in transport usage are instructive. A reasonable chunk of that rise in motor usage is the fall in buses and trains.
Knowing the normal modal stats, I would say we are back at perhaps 40-45% of usual activity. Bus / train are normally just under 20% of the total, and cars about 65%.
That's a growth back, but still very much quieter.
Still the third biggest news story after more than two weeks?
That is not good. If it was going to die away, it would have done so by now.
It's on 6% most-noticed. The crime of the century, the ultimate downfall of Cummings, Boris, Brexit, the universe...
6% noticed it.
Nobody except utter idiots like you is claiming it was the crime of the century. (Incidentally, I note that upthread you finally concede that he broke the regulations, even if you are the last person on Earth who believes his dumb lies about childcare.)
But it should have led to his summary dismissal.
The fact it hasn’t means his story is still running, whereas Duffield’s - which was in many ways equally serious - is not.
(As an aside, if the figures I have seen are correct, County Durham has the highest infection rate of any non-metropolitan area. While I think it probable that has nothing to do with Cummings, it is to put it mildly a most unfortunate coincidence.)
The reason Duffield's story isn't running is because Cummingsgate was a political hit job led by the Blob that hates him for what he did to them in 2016 and 2019. The moment Gardiner and Duffield's far worse transgressions became a story, the Blob ran a million miles in the opposite direction and pretended they'd never heard of lockdown before
You really are tribal fool. You don’t care about laws, you care about your side. A side that bears a distinctly uncomfortable resemblance to the Corbynistas.
I criticise Duffield. I criticise these protestors. I criticise Cummings.
But you cannot bring yourself to criticise Cummings.
The reason Duffield's story isn't running is because she put her hand up and accepted her 'guilt'. Cummings just put up two fingers.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
As long as they don't live at home with mum / dad / grandad. As that is exactly how it spread in Northern Italy. All the young folk socialize in Milan in the week, spread it among themselves and then headed back to family home at weekends and killed off nonno.
To be honest, I couldn't give a fuck. I think I'm unlikely to come into contact with any of the people who have been protesting.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
I would argue actually both are racist, but only one deserves sanctioning.
This is getting a bit wormhole but if something remains wholly within does it meaningfully exist without?
Ah, Schrodinger’s racism.
The answer is yes, but it is the impact that we have to measure.
From that point of view I would in practice agree with you. My point is however that racist thoughts are still racist. However we - fortunately - do not judge people by what they think, only by what they do.
It is difficult to believe that such a person could exist. No matter how hard they behaved to not show or act in any racist way, they would still do so because of subconscious activity I would argue. Also why would someone be a racist in thought only. I could understand that being the case in public, but in private?
If they were a racist - the noun being stronger if you've noticed - then I think you're right.
But if they were just plagued by racist thoughts at times, which they recognize as wrong and to be fought, then I would say it's quite likely there will be no external expression. Not even to nearest and dearest.
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
Piers Moron stooping to Big Dom level of excuses to defend his son after going batshit crazy at the sight of anybody even seen bending the rules.
Interestingly, no obvioius reports of large (ifany?) BLM demos in Scotland today - and it's a nice sunny day for many after earlier showers. The appeals by Ms Sturgeon and her SNP and Green and Labour colleagues may have had some impact in terms of people respecting the ongoing ban on large gatherings.
And we are now seeing covid stowaways in the ferries ...
Isn't the big BLM event in Edinburgh scheduled for tomorrow?
So it is, on checking - I hadn't realised there is a series of them. Well spotted.
One small and very partial consolation is that it's in Holyrood Park [huge open space under Arthur's Seat].
A few friends live and work in Edinburgh, they are a bit worried about going to work tomorrow and might have to interact with protesters who haven't in engaged in good social distancing.
Interestingly, no obvioius reports of large (ifany?) BLM demos in Scotland today - and it's a nice sunny day for many after earlier showers. The appeals by Ms Sturgeon and her SNP and Green and Labour colleagues may have had some impact in terms of people respecting the ongoing ban on large gatherings.
And we are now seeing covid stowaways in the ferries ...
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
As long as they don't live at home with mum / dad / grandad. As that is exactly how it spread in Northern Italy. All the young folk socialize in Milan in the week, spread it among themselves and then headed back to family home at weekends and killed off nonno.
To be honest, I couldn't give a fuck. I think I'm unlikely to come into contact with any of the people who have been protesting.
You sure?
The lot that usually protest at these sorts of events are hideously middle class.
These protests, both here, in europe, and worldwide should give a good insight into just how virulent covid is and if no spikes, it is likely lockdown will be over
They'll give no such thing, considering they're mostly outdoors.
Why anyone should think an infectious disease would magically stop being infectious just because we've managed to limit its spread by dint of keeping most of the population indoors for several months, is beyond me.
Quite how severe the restrictions need to be to control it may not be clear, but anyone who thinks we can just go back to normal needs psychiatric advice.
Interestingly, no obvioius reports of large (ifany?) BLM demos in Scotland today - and it's a nice sunny day for many after earlier showers. The appeals by Ms Sturgeon and her SNP and Green and Labour colleagues may have had some impact in terms of people respecting the ongoing ban on large gatherings.
And we are now seeing covid stowaways in the ferries ...
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
No, in that alternative universe I don't expect either 1 or 2 would be happening. I expect that 3 would be happening, which would comprise the government, probably through Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel, appealing to the public to mark Black Lives Matter in a way that did not break rules and that the government would receive the message most powerfully if protesters observed that.
The government would have retained the moral authority to do this and more of the public would have listened.
Instead, I have a biology graduate sending me live links on Facebook to her participation in a BLM demonstration today.
FWIW my friend who works at a supermarket right smack bang in the middle of Piccadilly Gardens says plenty of the protestors have Dom Cummings facemasks and/or 'Out for an eye test' banners/t shirts.
Most of them are engaging in good social distancing.
It's interesting watching clueless people argue with David Paton about statistics.
He pushed "Sweden deaths falling fast" constantly despite being told time and time again he was using heavily lagged data.
Oh, that's disappointing. Paton's usually very good with the stats; Sweden's stats, though, should only be viewed as solid from about 10-14 days ago. They're good at getting the information out there; they're just a bit more lagged than the ONS.
I've been watching the Swedish deaths-per-day and they go like this:
Each colour is a different reporting day; I've gone for dashed lines while the data is very incomplete and semi-dashed lines when it's fairly incomplete.
There's a downward trend, but it's certainly not "falling fast" unless you do take the incomplete data as accurate before it's updated.
Halving time of about 35 days, much longer than ours.
I suspect similar to ours now that lockdown is effectively over here.
Are you sure about that? It's still hugely quiet in this area.
There are eg more people planning to go back to work though June / July, but it is all being done slowly and carefully.
Shops are not open yet, but within the next fortnight most will be.
Traffic noticeably busier on my way to work and back now. Much the same now as school holiday traffic in the mornings.
Reasonable efforts at mask wearing and social distancing at the Leicester BLM protest.
Falls in transport usage are instructive. A reasonable chunk of that rise in motor usage is the fall in buses and trains.
Knowing the normal modal stats, I would say we are back at perhaps 40-45% of usual activity. Bus / train are normally just under 20% of the total, and cars about 65%.
That's a growth back, but still very much quieter.
It's lucky they're wearing tjhose magic masks, isn't it? The ones with tight-fitting HEPA filters, the ones they don't touch with their hands ever so they don't spread it over everything they handle afterwards. The ones with 'I'm immortal' written on them. Science? Who needs it when you know better?
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
No, in that alternative universe I don't expect either 1 or 2 would be happening. I expect that 3 would be happening, which would comprise the government, probably through Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel, appealing to the public to mark Black Lives Matter in a way that did not break rules and that the government would receive the message most powerfully if protesters observed that.
The government would have retained the moral authority to do this and more of the public would have listened.
Instead, I have a biology graduate sending me live links on Facebook to her participation in a BLM demonstration today.
There are other untainted politicians who aren't exactly telling them as it is:
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
I would argue actually both are racist, but only one deserves sanctioning.
This is getting a bit wormhole but if something remains wholly within does it meaningfully exist without?
I suppose you can only judge on what's put in front of you. If an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician was discovered to enjoy wearing a bedsheet and pointy white hat while watching Birth of a Nation over & over again in the privacy of their own home, it would probably be game over for them. Until that point, they remain an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician, probaby with a good chance of being in a BJ cabinet.
This is utterly meant without prejudice or mischief and I say it only because it happened and it surprised me -
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
As long as they don't live at home with mum / dad / grandad. As that is exactly how it spread in Northern Italy. All the young folk socialize in Milan in the week, spread it among themselves and then headed back to family home at weekends and killed off nonno.
To be honest, I couldn't give a fuck. I think I'm unlikely to come into contact with any of the people who have been protesting.
You sure?
The lot that usually protest at these sorts of events are hideously middle class.
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
No, in that alternative universe I don't expect either 1 or 2 would be happening. I expect that 3 would be happening, which would comprise the government, probably through Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel, appealing to the public to mark Black Lives Matter in a way that did not break rules and that the government would receive the message most powerfully if protesters observed that.
The government would have retained the moral authority to do this and more of the public would have listened.
Instead, I have a biology graduate sending me live links on Facebook to her participation in a BLM demonstration today.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all - and in the meantime people are being entreated to be so afraid of the virus that they hide in their individual brick boxes and don't come out unless it's unavoidable. That just isn't sustainable.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
As long as they don't live at home with mum / dad / grandad. As that is exactly how it spread in Northern Italy. All the young folk socialize in Milan in the week, spread it among themselves and then headed back to family home at weekends and killed off nonno.
To be honest, I couldn't give a fuck. I think I'm unlikely to come into contact with any of the people who have been protesting.
You sure?
The lot that usually protest at these sorts of events are hideously middle class.
Good job I'm not.
Well horrendously middle and upper class sorts frequent those sorts of events.
I mean you're guaranteed at least one Tarquin at every BLM protest.
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
No, in that alternative universe I don't expect either 1 or 2 would be happening. I expect that 3 would be happening, which would comprise the government, probably through Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel, appealing to the public to mark Black Lives Matter in a way that did not break rules and that the government would receive the message most powerfully if protesters observed that.
The government would have retained the moral authority to do this and more of the public would have listened.
Instead, I have a biology graduate sending me live links on Facebook to her participation in a BLM demonstration today.
The idea that your, er, politically-engaged biology graduate wouldn't have gone to her precious demonstrations whether or not Dominic Cummings had ever existed is utterly laughable.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
I would argue actually both are racist, but only one deserves sanctioning.
This is getting a bit wormhole but if something remains wholly within does it meaningfully exist without?
Ah, Schrodinger’s racism.
The answer is yes, but it is the impact that we have to measure.
From that point of view I would in practice agree with you. My point is however that racist thoughts are still racist. However we - fortunately - do not judge people by what they think, only by what they do.
Yes. Mr B is racist too - strictly speaking - but Mr A is the one to worry about.
That's what I'm getting at really.
Also why I think politicians who whip up racism are the pits and it matters very little if they do not themselves believe what they say. In fact, in a sense, this makes it worse because it's more cynical.
If we have to have politicians whipping up racism, it's better if they are actually proper racists - would be the more challenging way of putting it.
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
No, in that alternative universe I don't expect either 1 or 2 would be happening. I expect that 3 would be happening, which would comprise the government, probably through Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel, appealing to the public to mark Black Lives Matter in a way that did not break rules and that the government would receive the message most powerfully if protesters observed that.
The government would have retained the moral authority to do this and more of the public would have listened.
Instead, I have a biology graduate sending me live links on Facebook to her participation in a BLM demonstration today.
The idea that your, er, politically-engaged biology graduate wouldn't have gone to her precious demonstrations whether or not Dominic Cummings had ever existed is utterly laughable.
Unlike you, she is not an exclusively political partisan being. I'm reasonably confident that she could have been dissuaded.
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
No, in that alternative universe I don't expect either 1 or 2 would be happening. I expect that 3 would be happening, which would comprise the government, probably through Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel, appealing to the public to mark Black Lives Matter in a way that did not break rules and that the government would receive the message most powerfully if protesters observed that.
The government would have retained the moral authority to do this and more of the public would have listened.
Instead, I have a biology graduate sending me live links on Facebook to her participation in a BLM demonstration today.
The idea that your, er, politically-engaged biology graduate wouldn't have gone to her precious demonstrations whether or not Dominic Cummings had ever existed is utterly laughable.
Unlike you, she is not an exclusively political partisan being. I'm reasonably confident that she could have been dissuaded.
How old are these people?! They'll only do the "right thing" if the government has the moral authority to tell them to do so? Utterly bizarre.
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
No, in that alternative universe I don't expect either 1 or 2 would be happening. I expect that 3 would be happening, which would comprise the government, probably through Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel, appealing to the public to mark Black Lives Matter in a way that did not break rules and that the government would receive the message most powerfully if protesters observed that.
The government would have retained the moral authority to do this and more of the public would have listened.
Instead, I have a biology graduate sending me live links on Facebook to her participation in a BLM demonstration today.
The idea that your, er, politically-engaged biology graduate wouldn't have gone to her precious demonstrations whether or not Dominic Cummings had ever existed is utterly laughable.
Unlike you, she is not an exclusively political partisan being. I'm reasonably confident that she could have been dissuaded.
How old are these people?! They'll only do the "right thing" if the government has the moral authority to tell them to do so? Utterly bizarre.
They are toddlers. Moral and intellectual toddlers who will only do the right thing if a big boy does it first.
For the first time ever I have genuine respect for David Lammy, who made clear on Question Time that he wouldn't be participating in the demonstrations, because '[you can't] one week condemn Dominic Cummings for travelling up the country and the next go out [and protest]'.
Not just not a hypocrite, but an anti-hypocrite, at least this time. Well done that man!
Still the third biggest news story after more than two weeks?
That is not good. If it was going to die away, it would have done so by now.
It's on 6% most-noticed. The crime of the century, the ultimate downfall of Cummings, Boris, Brexit, the universe...
6% noticed it.
Nobody except utter idiots like you is claiming it was the crime of the century. (Incidentally, I note that upthread you finally concede that he broke the regulations, even if you are the last person on Earth who believes his dumb lies about childcare.)
But it should have led to his summary dismissal.
The fact it hasn’t means his story is still running, whereas Duffield’s - which was in many ways equally serious - is not.
(As an aside, if the figures I have seen are correct, County Durham has the highest infection rate of any non-metropolitan area. While I think it probable that has nothing to do with Cummings, it is to put it mildly a most unfortunate coincidence.)
The reason Duffield's story isn't running is because Cummingsgate was a political hit job led by the Blob that hates him for what he did to them in 2016 and 2019. The moment Gardiner and Duffield's far worse transgressions became a story, the Blob ran a million miles in the opposite direction and pretended they'd never heard of lockdown before
You really are tribal fool. You don’t care about laws, you care about your side. A side that bears a distinctly uncomfortable resemblance to the Corbynistas.
I criticise Duffield. I criticise these protestors. I criticise Cummings.
But you cannot bring yourself to criticise Cummings.
You simultaneously argue that Cummings shouldn't be important because he's an idiot, and that he's so important that thousands of people are ignoring the rules because of him.
How memories are short. In December 2018 the hapless and hopeless Mrs May comfortably (63%) won an explicit no-confidence vote among Tory MPs and that was months of endless speculation as to whether the threshold would ever be reached.
The notion that landslide winning PM Johnson is going to be toppled anytime soon by the Parliamentary party is almost barkingly breathtakingly bonkers. HYUFD is absolutely right on this one; in fact, I'd wager he's pretty well impregnable whatever happens until the next election. (BTW I voted Hunt last year).
Boris Johnson might conceivably leave of his own accord, possibly on health grounds. Otherwise, I agree with you.
Wishful thinking.
This isn't remotely the premiership Johnson wanted - no "sunny uplands" and boundless optimism - its going to be years of hard slog needing mastery of facts and command of detail.
So what? If he gets through it he stands an excellent chance of being PM for a decade, the man who got Brexit done, led the nation through the global pandemic and restored us to confidence and prosperity. Not just a PM, but one for the history books.
If you don't think he both visualizes and desires that narrative, then I don't think you realy understand him. I'm sure he'd have loved it to all be easy, but a glance at any of his predecessors will have told him that that's not how the job works.
Boris Johnson's best chance of being a historic PM is by being the one to oversee the dissolution of the UK.
If he wants to go down in history as badly as Lord North who lost the American colonies you mean
That was because we didn't have any allies on the continent...
The French fought against us alongside the colonists in the War of Independence, just as the French vetoed our entry into the EEC and of course the leader of the EU side in the BREXIT negotiations, Michel Barnier, is French too.
We did have a few German states allied to us in the American Revolutionary War, Brunswick, Hesse and Hanover for example sent troops to fight alongside the British
We won the Seven Years War because we allied with Prussia against France, but betrayed Prussia after we thought we'd achieved our goal of securing North America by conquering Canada. When France got its revenge, we were effectively alone.
We were alone because in suited no other country to support us - victory in the Seven Years War had made Britain too powerful.
Of course France's revenge achieved little for France beyond ruining its economy and causing revolution within a few years.
Though that did lead to Napoleon emerging within a few decades, who was again finally defeated by Britain and Prussia at Waterloo.
European wars have normally been fought between England or Britain and/or some German states against France and/or Spain. WW1 and WW2 were some of the few occasions we were allied with France against Germany.
In the EU now we have left the balance of power has shifted more from Berlin to Paris
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all ...
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Mr A is what Peter Hitchens thinks Enoch Powell was.
If Mr B believed in God rather than White Supremacism, but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way. would that mean he wasn't religious?
Great question. I'd say he is religious because it's the belief that counts in this case. Conversely a regular church goer who does not believe is not religious.
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
No, in that alternative universe I don't expect either 1 or 2 would be happening. I expect that 3 would be happening, which would comprise the government, probably through Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel, appealing to the public to mark Black Lives Matter in a way that did not break rules and that the government would receive the message most powerfully if protesters observed that.
The government would have retained the moral authority to do this and more of the public would have listened.
Instead, I have a biology graduate sending me live links on Facebook to her participation in a BLM demonstration today.
The idea that your, er, politically-engaged biology graduate wouldn't have gone to her precious demonstrations whether or not Dominic Cummings had ever existed is utterly laughable.
Unlike you, she is not an exclusively political partisan being. I'm reasonably confident that she could have been dissuaded.
How old are these people?! They'll only do the "right thing" if the government has the moral authority to tell them to do so? Utterly bizarre.
They are toddlers. Moral and intellectual toddlers who will only do the right thing if a big boy does it first.
For the first time ever I have genuine respect for David Lammy, who made clear on Question Time that he wouldn't be participating in the demonstrations, because '[you can't] one week condemn Dominic Cummings for travelling up the country and the next go out [and protest]'.
Not just not a hypocrite, but an anti-hypocrite, at least this time. Well done that man!
And no one in authority can match his words. Because they’ve spent the last few weeks excusing the inexcusable and replacing clear rules with incomprehensible ones to cover the back of their top apparatchik.
This, incidentally, includes the scientists who have allowed themselves to be coopted in support of the government’s back-covering. So now they can’t say “don’t go”.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
I doubt that logic will be followed, perhaps understandably. The bigger issue with something like a PL game at the Emirates is everyone piling on to the tube.
It's interesting watching clueless people argue with David Paton about statistics.
He pushed "Sweden deaths falling fast" constantly despite being told time and time again he was using heavily lagged data.
Oh come off it! You have been calling a decline of roughly 50% in a month a "plateau"!
No I called the period from about the end of April to the middle of May a plateau whilst various people were marvelling at the false decline caused by lagged data. I then called that it would move into gentle decline as the leading indicators were falling.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
I doubt that logic will be followed, perhaps understandably. The bigger issue with something like a PL game at the Emirates is everyone piling on to the tube.
The NRL will be allowing very limited attendance next weekend. Will be interesting to see how that goes.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Mr A is what Peter Hitchens thinks Enoch Powell was.
If Mr B believed in God rather than White Supremacism, but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way. would that mean he wasn't religious?
Great question. I'd say he is religious because it's the belief that counts in this case. Conversely a regular church goer who does not believe is not religious.
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
Again its a language problem. Racism means different things to different people. It doesnt matter if kinabulu's descriptive logic is right or wrong if its not widely shared. We need distinct words that cover both those scenarios, and many of the other types of behaviour that some consider racist, and others dont, so we can be clear about exactly what we are talking about.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all - and in the meantime people are being entreated to be so afraid of the virus that they hide in their individual brick boxes and don't come out unless it's unavoidable. That just isn't sustainable.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
Set against that is the knowledge that a vaccine or effective treatment (or effective immediate and local test) could be available soon.
There's at least a 50% chance we could have a vaccine available (large scale, as well) by late September/early October. Better treatments are being improved all the time. An on-the-spot 20-minute reliable test is two-and-a-half weeks into a 6 week trial.
It's a bit soon to be opting for a dichotomy of either assuming 10 years of incarceration, or accepting a high chance of infection.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
I doubt that logic will be followed, perhaps understandably. The bigger issue with something like a PL game at the Emirates is everyone piling on to the tube.
True enough. I wonder how much bicycle parking there is at the Emirates?
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
Might it also lead to churches reopening?
I haven’t pulled out my eight foot horn in weeks.
Churches are inside, so we already know they're risky.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
Might it also lead to churches reopening?
I haven’t pulled out my eight foot horn in weeks.
My church has been told it won't be re-opening before July, but we are working on plans for then, with appropriate precautions.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Mr A is what Peter Hitchens thinks Enoch Powell was.
If Mr B believed in God rather than White Supremacism, but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way. would that mean he wasn't religious?
Great question. I'd say he is religious because it's the belief that counts in this case. Conversely a regular church goer who does not believe is not religious.
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
Wasn't Mr Lincoln, A. a 'racist' in some aspects of his thinking, and yet ...
The last three times PBers called a new spike (April warm spell, both May warm spells), it didn’t happen.
The continual predictions of the second wave do take on something of the appearance of one of these American preachers trying continually, with regular failures along the way, to forecast the Apocalypse. The faithful will, we are confidently told, be Raptured on such and such a date, and when each date has come and gone without any miraculous vanishings a new one is plucked out of thin air to succeed it.
So far we've had the sunniest Spring on record, people invading the parks in London and then the beaches on the South Coast, more people starting to go back to work, the lifting of restrictions on outdoor exercise, the VE Day parties, businesses like B&Q, Ikea and takeaway restaurant chains gradually opening back up, the unshuttering of the garden centres, and, most recently, the partial re-opening of the schools.
And still, the numbers of positive tests, hospitalisations and deaths all trend steadily downwards. So all these things which we were told to be terrified of because they might be the doorway to disaster are quickly forgotten, and whatever the next measure in the sequence is (presumably the general re-opening of shops on June 15th) becomes the latest point at which the Apocalypse is bound to be initiated.
Why the latest batch of warnings should be any more valid than all of those which came before them is never adequately explained. All we can do is simply try these measures and see what happens. If the doom-mongers are right then eventually the second wave will show some signs of turning up, and then we try to decide how bad it is likely to be and how best to counter it. If it doesn't then we just keep on going.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Mr A is what Peter Hitchens thinks Enoch Powell was.
If Mr B believed in God rather than White Supremacism, but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way. would that mean he wasn't religious?
Great question. I'd say he is religious because it's the belief that counts in this case. Conversely a regular church goer who does not believe is not religious.
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
Wasn't Mr Lincoln, A. a 'racist' in some aspects of his thinking, and yet ...
Ditto Ghandi, but these things do need to be set in the context of their times. Both were more enlightened than average for their contemporaries.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Mr A is what Peter Hitchens thinks Enoch Powell was.
If Mr B believed in God rather than White Supremacism, but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way. would that mean he wasn't religious?
Great question. I'd say he is religious because it's the belief that counts in this case. Conversely a regular church goer who does not believe is not religious.
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
Wasn't Mr Lincoln, A. a 'racist' in some aspects of his thinking, and yet ...
The sub conscious human brain works heavily off pattern recognition, so the vast majority of us, myself included, will be racist in some aspects of our thinking. Studies show even black Americans find black Americans more scary and less trustworthy than white Americans.
In my conscious decision making I certainly try not to be racist, but sure there will have been occasions when I have been done inadvertently.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Mr A is what Peter Hitchens thinks Enoch Powell was.
If Mr B believed in God rather than White Supremacism, but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way. would that mean he wasn't religious?
Great question. I'd say he is religious because it's the belief that counts in this case. Conversely a regular church goer who does not believe is not religious.
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
Wasn't Mr Lincoln, A. a 'racist' in some aspects of his thinking, and yet ...
Indeed. Lincoln would be cancelled so fast if he were alive today it would make your head spin. You'd get articles from progressives arguing quite seriously that he was no better than Trump, and quite possibly worse:
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Mr A is what Peter Hitchens thinks Enoch Powell was.
If Mr B believed in God rather than White Supremacism, but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way. would that mean he wasn't religious?
Great question. I'd say he is religious because it's the belief that counts in this case. Conversely a regular church goer who does not believe is not religious.
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
Wasn't Mr Lincoln, A. a 'racist' in some aspects of his thinking, and yet ...
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races
Being opposed to slavery doesn’t necessarily make somebody an anti-racist.
(It is worth remembering the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, even if it was legal, only abolished slavery in the Confederacy, not the United States.)
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
I would argue actually both are racist, but only one deserves sanctioning.
This is getting a bit wormhole but if something remains wholly within does it meaningfully exist without?
I suppose you can only judge on what's put in front of you. If an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician was discovered to enjoy wearing a bedsheet and pointy white hat while watching Birth of a Nation over & over again in the privacy of their own home, it would probably be game over for them. Until that point, they remain an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician, probaby with a good chance of being in a BJ cabinet.
This is utterly meant without prejudice or mischief and I say it only because it happened and it surprised me -
As I read that I pictured Michael Gove.
Tbf Govey seems to be about the coke and the hardcore porn rather than the KKK-ing. Can't rule anything out though..
My wife and I have been in lockdown since 21st March and only recently were allowed to see our grandchildren in our garden but with no physical contact. Our youngest grandson was in terrible distress as he could not hug his Grandma, and so was she
I turn on Sky and see the huge BLM crowds in London and elsewhere and my heart sinks to the floor.
No matter BLM have a just cause, which they do, how much damage will this do to our progress and ironically how many more of their community will suffer from covid as a direct result of this
Hancock, Sturgeon and Patel have all appealed to respect the two metre rule and not gather in large numbers but where is Starmer and Khan in all of this
No doubt Starmer is penning a letter about it, but his absence from the media is just as bad as Boris recent submarine activities
To be honest Cummings, together with Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner, were nothing compared to this
If no covid flare up happens in the next couple of weeks I will be amazed, and indeed many would say let us get back to normal
I am very concerned for everyone today
The government has lost its moral authority to lead the lockdown. There is a direct line from Barnard Castle to this.
These protests would be happening regardless of Cummings story. As the signs people are holding say they see racism as a bigger virus than covid.
I expect they would. But if lockdown hadn't already been trashed by the government, far more people would be considering other ways of protesting here than meeting up in confined spaces and far more people would feel able to point to the responsibilities we have to keep up that good work.
For an intelligent person you do talk some bollocks.
As I noted below:
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
So, in an alternative universe where the Cummings affair either didn't happen or they sacked him straight away, you think either:
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely. 2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
No, in that alternative universe I don't expect either 1 or 2 would be happening. I expect that 3 would be happening, which would comprise the government, probably through Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel, appealing to the public to mark Black Lives Matter in a way that did not break rules and that the government would receive the message most powerfully if protesters observed that.
The government would have retained the moral authority to do this and more of the public would have listened.
Instead, I have a biology graduate sending me live links on Facebook to her participation in a BLM demonstration today.
The idea that your, er, politically-engaged biology graduate wouldn't have gone to her precious demonstrations whether or not Dominic Cummings had ever existed is utterly laughable.
Unlike you, she is not an exclusively political partisan being. I'm reasonably confident that she could have been dissuaded.
How old are these people?! They'll only do the "right thing" if the government has the moral authority to tell them to do so? Utterly bizarre.
They are toddlers. Moral and intellectual toddlers who will only do the right thing if a big boy does it first.
For the first time ever I have genuine respect for David Lammy, who made clear on Question Time that he wouldn't be participating in the demonstrations, because '[you can't] one week condemn Dominic Cummings for travelling up the country and the next go out [and protest]'.
Not just not a hypocrite, but an anti-hypocrite, at least this time. Well done that man!
And no one in authority can match his words. Because they’ve spent the last few weeks excusing the inexcusable and replacing clear rules with incomprehensible ones to cover the back of their top apparatchik.
This, incidentally, includes the scientists who have allowed themselves to be coopted in support of the government’s back-covering. So now they can’t say “don’t go”.
Yes, imagine the moral cards Boris would hold if he had sacked Cummings: 'I lost the man who defeated The Blob, secured Brexit, destroyed The Elite and won me a general election. No sacrifice could be greater. No single action could evince more strikingly the unprecedented measures this crisis demands of us all.'
The R rate went above one in parts of Germany after lockdown was relaxed, but it went back down again.
That is almost inevitable from natural statistical variance (assuming R not miles below 1). The media will panic but its really not a problem if properly managed.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Mr A is what Peter Hitchens thinks Enoch Powell was.
If Mr B believed in God rather than White Supremacism, but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way. would that mean he wasn't religious?
Great question. I'd say he is religious because it's the belief that counts in this case. Conversely a regular church goer who does not believe is not religious.
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
Wasn't Mr Lincoln, A. a 'racist' in some aspects of his thinking, and yet ...
Ditto Ghandi, but these things do need to be set in the context of their times. Both were more enlightened than average for their contemporaries.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
Might it also lead to churches reopening?
I haven’t pulled out my eight foot horn in weeks.
Just as long as you don't overdo the Cor Glorieux and Cremona stops. Nothing worse than gratuitous sax and violins.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
I would argue actually both are racist, but only one deserves sanctioning.
This is getting a bit wormhole but if something remains wholly within does it meaningfully exist without?
I suppose you can only judge on what's put in front of you. If an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician was discovered to enjoy wearing a bedsheet and pointy white hat while watching Birth of a Nation over & over again in the privacy of their own home, it would probably be game over for them. Until that point, they remain an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician, probaby with a good chance of being in a BJ cabinet.
This is utterly meant without prejudice or mischief and I say it only because it happened and it surprised me -
As I read that I pictured Michael Gove.
Tbf Govey seems to be about the coke and hardcore porn rather than the KKK-ing. Can't rule anything out though..
If there were an organisation dedicated to the lynching of teachers, OTOH...
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all - and in the meantime people are being entreated to be so afraid of the virus that they hide in their individual brick boxes and don't come out unless it's unavoidable. That just isn't sustainable.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
Set against that is the knowledge that a vaccine or effective treatment (or effective immediate and local test) could be available soon.
There's at least a 50% chance we could have a vaccine available (large scale, as well) by late September/early October. Better treatments are being improved all the time. An on-the-spot 20-minute reliable test is two-and-a-half weeks into a 6 week trial.
It's a bit soon to be opting for a dichotomy of either assuming 10 years of incarceration, or accepting a high chance of infection.
Some good vibes around the vaccine. I'm feeling bullish that Covid is over by this time next year at the absolute latest.
On the flip side, I get the impression the health impact might be greater than is widely known at the moment. Many people who survive but with lasting damage.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
Might it also lead to churches reopening?
I haven’t pulled out my eight foot horn in weeks.
Just as long as you don't overdo the Cor Glorieux and Cremona stops. Nothing worse than gratuitous sax and violins.
Almost perfect, but I think you mean a Gamba not a Cremona.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
Might it also lead to churches reopening?
I haven’t pulled out my eight foot horn in weeks.
Just as long as you don't overdo the Cor Glorieux and Cremona stops. Nothing worse than gratuitous sax and violins.
Almost perfect, but I think you mean a Gamba not a Cremona.
In the past, some organ builders have incorrectly interpreted it as indicating a violin, after the Italian city of Cremona, famed for its violins.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Mr A is what Peter Hitchens thinks Enoch Powell was.
If Mr B believed in God rather than White Supremacism, but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way. would that mean he wasn't religious?
Great question. I'd say he is religious because it's the belief that counts in this case. Conversely a regular church goer who does not believe is not religious.
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
Wasn't Mr Lincoln, A. a 'racist' in some aspects of his thinking, and yet ...
Ditto Gandhi, but these things do need to be set in the context of their times. Both were more enlightened than average for their contemporaries.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
Might it also lead to churches reopening?
I haven’t pulled out my eight foot horn in weeks.
Just as long as you don't overdo the Cor Glorieux and Cremona stops. Nothing worse than gratuitous sax and violins.
Almost perfect, but I think you mean a Gamba not a Cremona.
In the past, some organ builders have incorrectly interpreted it as indicating a violin, after the Italian city of Cremona, famed for its violins.
Comments
However, it’s much more likely it will lead to a second spike and an even more devastating lockdown.
All lives matter. They are risking far too many of them from both Covid and devastation.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/law-order-svu-george-floyd-death-coronavirus-pandemic-new-season
Alternatively, it's because Duffield acknowledged that she was in the wrong and didn't go to absurd contortions to justify her actions. Same way that Bob Seeley's barbeque will be a 12 hour wonder.
“A soft word turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” and all that.
Traffic noticeably busier on my way to work and back now. Much the same now as school holiday traffic in the mornings.
Reasonable efforts at mask wearing and social distancing at the Leicester BLM protest.
https://twitter.com/2smartmonkeys/status/1269280486741991425?s=09
Scotland: £11,247 (17% above the UK average)
Wales: £10,656 (11% above the UK average)
Northern Ireland £11,590 (21% above the UK average).
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04033/
Scotland has more money to spend and can afford these additional choices primarily because it is heavily subsidised, despite being reasonably well-off. Scottish per capita GDP, at £29,660 according to the most recently published figures, exceeds that of all other comparable statistical regions of the UK outside the south-eastern quadrant of England.
The continued existence of the defective Barnett formula is not, of course, Scotland's fault in any way, shape or form, but this doesn't change the fact that it exists. My original point wasn't to have a pop at Scotland but to dig around the rotten foundations of the Union.
I have a clear conscience about my own visit this week to see grandma.
Derek Draper, for one, does not show up on the death rates.
Though it hasn't been ruled out that the brains in question may already have been useless even before COVID-19 emerged.
And we are now seeing covid stowaways in the ferries ...
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18500769.calmac-discover-golfers-hiding-vans-attempt-evade-lockdown-rules-travel-scots-islands/
"Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing."
Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, if you're interested. Who, incidentally, knew a fair bit about treating diseases.
My example is a bit extreme and absolutist. It rejects "I think therefore I am" in favour of "I communicate therefore I am".
Which actually doesn't work because it implies that if somebody removed all of my ability to communicate - "We wish", I hear resounding - then I would be null and void. And of course I wouldn't be. I'd still be a hard left social democrat but a silent one.
A more interesting comparison would be if the question "do you know who Dominic Cummings is?" had been asked both today and back, say, in March.
I'd guess around 80-90% now know who he is, compared with maybe 10% a couple of months ago. His new-found fame prepares him well for his next appearance in the news. A Spad really shouldn't be so well known.
Timing is also important in respect of Cummings. His actions were right at the start of lockdown, when compliance was pretty much universal. Duffield, Gardiner etc. were much later, when clearly things were slipping. Not an excuse, but an observation.
1) the BLM protests wouldn't be happening - I think this is ridiculously unlikely.
2) the politicians would be telling the police to arrest them with the support of media personalities such as Piers Morgan.
I'm sorry, but we now live in a world where no one is prepared to stand up to groups like BLM. There is not chance that the world would be any different without the Cummings affair.
Now, if the government has to lockdown again later in the year, you might have a point if more people "do a Cummings/Sean T" and fuck off to their second homes.
One small and very partial consolation is that it's in Holyrood Park [huge open space under Arthur's Seat].
Knowing the normal modal stats, I would say we are back at perhaps 40-45% of usual activity. Bus / train are normally just under 20% of the total, and cars about 65%.
That's a growth back, but still very much quieter.
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1269285894957268992
Cummings just put up two fingers.
But if they were just plagued by racist thoughts at times, which they recognize as wrong and to be fought, then I would say it's quite likely there will be no external expression. Not even to nearest and dearest.
Can be very cold !!
The lot that usually protest at these sorts of events are hideously middle class.
Why anyone should think an infectious disease would magically stop being infectious just because we've managed to limit its spread by dint of keeping most of the population indoors for several months, is beyond me.
Quite how severe the restrictions need to be to control it may not be clear, but anyone who thinks we can just go back to normal needs psychiatric advice.
The government would have retained the moral authority to do this and more of the public would have listened.
Instead, I have a biology graduate sending me live links on Facebook to her participation in a BLM demonstration today.
Most of them are engaging in good social distancing.
(Yes, I know this is a straw)
https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1269265418281238530
As I read that I pictured Michael Gove.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
I mean you're guaranteed at least one Tarquin at every BLM protest.
That's what I'm getting at really.
Also why I think politicians who whip up racism are the pits and it matters very little if they do not themselves believe what they say. In fact, in a sense, this makes it worse because it's more cynical.
If we have to have politicians whipping up racism, it's better if they are actually proper racists - would be the more challenging way of putting it.
Less than 1% noticed Brexit, so are you concluding that Brexit has had no long-term impact?
The endless lengths you ago to to tell us that the Cummings story is irrelevant leads me to believe that you actually believe the exact opposite.
For the first time ever I have genuine respect for David Lammy, who made clear on Question Time that he wouldn't be participating in the demonstrations, because '[you can't] one week condemn Dominic Cummings for travelling up the country and the next go out [and protest]'.
Not just not a hypocrite, but an anti-hypocrite, at least this time. Well done that man!
Oh, the blessings of the Internet ....
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
Is there any limit to how moronic you people can be?
This, incidentally, includes the scientists who have allowed themselves to be coopted in support of the government’s back-covering. So now they can’t say “don’t go”.
PBers assured us this would trigger a second spike.
But, it didn’t.
The dog that did not bark.
I haven’t pulled out my eight foot horn in weeks.
There's at least a 50% chance we could have a vaccine available (large scale, as well) by late September/early October. Better treatments are being improved all the time. An on-the-spot 20-minute reliable test is two-and-a-half weeks into a 6 week trial.
It's a bit soon to be opting for a dichotomy of either assuming 10 years of incarceration, or accepting a high chance of infection.
So far we've had the sunniest Spring on record, people invading the parks in London and then the beaches on the South Coast, more people starting to go back to work, the lifting of restrictions on outdoor exercise, the VE Day parties, businesses like B&Q, Ikea and takeaway restaurant chains gradually opening back up, the unshuttering of the garden centres, and, most recently, the partial re-opening of the schools.
And still, the numbers of positive tests, hospitalisations and deaths all trend steadily downwards. So all these things which we were told to be terrified of because they might be the doorway to disaster are quickly forgotten, and whatever the next measure in the sequence is (presumably the general re-opening of shops on June 15th) becomes the latest point at which the Apocalypse is bound to be initiated.
Why the latest batch of warnings should be any more valid than all of those which came before them is never adequately explained. All we can do is simply try these measures and see what happens. If the doom-mongers are right then eventually the second wave will show some signs of turning up, and then we try to decide how bad it is likely to be and how best to counter it. If it doesn't then we just keep on going.
In my conscious decision making I certainly try not to be racist, but sure there will have been occasions when I have been done inadvertently.
https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,3604,332563,00.html
https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
Being opposed to slavery doesn’t necessarily make somebody an anti-racist.
(It is worth remembering the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, even if it was legal, only abolished slavery in the Confederacy, not the United States.)
On the flip side, I get the impression the health impact might be greater than is widely known at the moment. Many people who survive but with lasting damage.
As opposed to being listened to, for instance?
http://www.organstops.org/c/Cremona.html
‘Don’t blame me. I’m from Massachusetts.’
Oddly, I haven’t played an organ with a good Gamba since leaving Gloucestershire. Round here they like rather weedy salcionals.