Lewis Hamilton identifies as black despite not actually being black.
Does somebody of mixed race not have the right to choose which of those races to allign with? Or does being of mixed race rob them of being either?
I suspect there are still plenty of whites who would say "he can't choose to be one of us whites". I don't know if there is a similar degree of prejudice in the black community that would say "you can be a fellow traveller - but not one of our footsoldiers in our Black Lives Matter culture war. Because you don't know what it's like to be black."
I don't know, but the ONS stats are all based on self-definition:
Lewis Hamilton identifies as black despite not actually being black.
Does somebody of mixed race not have the right to choose which of those races to allign with? Or does being of mixed race rob them of being either?
I suspect there are still plenty of whites who would say "he can't choose to be one of us whites". I don't know if there is a similar degree of prejudice in the black community that would say "you can be a fellow traveller - but not one of our footsoldiers in our Black Lives Matter culture war. Because you don't know what it's like to be black."
I understand that those of mixed race are regarded as the other by both sides and certainly used to get prejudice from both sides whether this is still the case I have no idea
Lewis Hamilton identifies as black despite not actually being black.
Does somebody of mixed race not have the right to choose which of those races to allign with? Or does being of mixed race rob them of being either?
I suspect there are still plenty of whites who would say "he can't choose to be one of us whites". I don't know if there is a similar degree of prejudice in the black community that would say "you can be a fellow traveller - but not one of our footsoldiers in our Black Lives Matter culture war. Because you don't know what it's like to be black."
Google Shaun King. Very likely to be white, claims to be black, has made a career out of it. He's part of BLM. Controversial character.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
You said you agreed with my original post and yet you post this, comparing trans gender to trans species. I smell a rat.
I was supporting your original post with irony.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim you said.
Nor should you change species on a whim. Even worse!
You're losing me now. What has "changing species" got to do with any of this?
I was doing it on a whim and expecting respect for it. An analogy.
It’s a well known offensive false parallel. Same comparison used by people who opposed gay marriage
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.
Lewis Hamilton identifies as black despite not actually being black.
Does somebody of mixed race not have the right to choose which of those races to allign with? Or does being of mixed race rob them of being either?
I suspect there are still plenty of whites who would say "he can't choose to be one of us whites". I don't know if there is a similar degree of prejudice in the black community that would say "you can be a fellow traveller - but not one of our footsoldiers in our Black Lives Matter culture war. Because you don't know what it's like to be black."
Google Shaun King. Very likely to be white, claims to be black, has made a career out of it. He's part of BLM. Controversial character.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
You said you agreed with my original post and yet you post this, comparing trans gender to trans species. I smell a rat.
I was supporting your original post with irony.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim you said.
Nor should you change species on a whim. Even worse!
You're losing me now. What has "changing species" got to do with any of this?
I was doing it on a whim and expecting respect for it. An analogy.
It’s a well known offensive false parallel. Same comparison used by people who opposed gay marriage
Apart from no one was questioning the fact of transgenderism, they were questioning the right to self identify. As I said if we are allowed to self identify I would certainly do so if I was facing a jail sentence because it would be stupid not too.
A medical opinion of gender dysmorphia is quite a different thing.
Lewis Hamilton identifies as black despite not actually being black.
Does somebody of mixed race not have the right to choose which of those races to allign with? Or does being of mixed race rob them of being either?
I suspect there are still plenty of whites who would say "he can't choose to be one of us whites". I don't know if there is a similar degree of prejudice in the black community that would say "you can be a fellow traveller - but not one of our footsoldiers in our Black Lives Matter culture war. Because you don't know what it's like to be black."
Google Shaun King. Very likely to be white, claims to be black, has made a career out of it. He's part of BLM. Controversial character.
I just googled him, and it appears someone has given him the nickname "Talcum X".
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.
Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.
Lewis Hamilton identifies as black despite not actually being black.
Does somebody of mixed race not have the right to choose which of those races to allign with? Or does being of mixed race rob them of being either?
I suspect there are still plenty of whites who would say "he can't choose to be one of us whites". I don't know if there is a similar degree of prejudice in the black community that would say "you can be a fellow traveller - but not one of our footsoldiers in our Black Lives Matter culture war. Because you don't know what it's like to be black."
Google Shaun King. Very likely to be white, claims to be black, has made a career out of it. He's part of BLM. Controversial character.
Thanks for the King reference. That's my daily dose of the decent into collective insanity satisfied.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
You said you agreed with my original post and yet you post this, comparing trans gender to trans species. I smell a rat.
I was supporting your original post with irony.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim you said.
Nor should you change species on a whim. Even worse!
You're losing me now. What has "changing species" got to do with any of this?
I was doing it on a whim and expecting respect for it. An analogy.
It’s a well known offensive false parallel. Same comparison used by people who opposed gay marriage
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Lewis Hamilton identifies as black despite not actually being black.
What? And I know his mum is white!
Where do we draw the line on this? The whole BLM thing has been very clear that it is about black lives and anyone wanting to make it about racism in general needs to STFU.
If race isn't something people can make a choice about, where do we draw the line?
That being so, the organisation BLM is plain wrong. It is not to say the notion of black lives matter isn't worthy and right!
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
The Mongol conquests and the Mughal invasion of India also had a massive death toll. World War Two killed 60-120m.
War is pretty bloody.
I've never even heard of the second war on this list? The war of the Three Kingdoms? Killed 40 million?!
If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.
Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.
Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.
Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.
I'm really not sure that's true.
Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"
Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.
The Mongol conquests and the Mughal invasion of India also had a massive death toll. World War Two killed 60-120m.
War is pretty bloody.
I've never even heard of the second war on this list? The war of the Three Kingdoms? Killed 40 million?!
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.
Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.
Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.
Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.
Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination
Again I said at the start of this discussion banks should have a universal service obligation to offer debit cards. Not credit, not overdrafts, just debit. Ensuring universal access to banking and cards fixes genuine problems more than obliging every small business has to accept cash whether it wants to or not.
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.
Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.
Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination
Again I said at the start of this discussion banks should have a universal service obligation to offer debit cards. Not credit, not overdrafts, just debit. Ensuring universal access to banking and cards fixes genuine problems more than obliging every small business has to accept cash whether it wants to or not.
Banks are utilities and should be regulated as such
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
London Edinburgh York Suffolk (excluding the Lowestoft area) Bristol (West End only) Bath The Cotswolds South Hams, Devon Durham (City) Isle of Skye
Lots of Georgian buildings. Good places to meet smart or rich young people. I would add Cambridge or Margate depending on what this list is meant to be. Hard to believe that Croydon is up there with Durham. Nothing at all in Wales or NI.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.
Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.
Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination
Again I said at the start of this discussion banks should have a universal service obligation to offer debit cards. Not credit, not overdrafts, just debit. Ensuring universal access to banking and cards fixes genuine problems more than obliging every small business has to accept cash whether it wants to or not.
Banks are utilities and should be regulated as such
My secret list of interesting or intriguing places in the UK, grouped roughly thematically: Milton Keynes, Sheffield, Thamesmead, Canary Wharf; the university towns, the West End of London; Liverpool, Belfast, Derry, Lewis and Harris, Lewes; St Kilda.
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.
Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.
Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination
I can use my Revolut card as a pre-paid card in the UK without a fee. Is that not universal?
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.
Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.
Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination
I can use my Revolut card as a pre-paid card in the UK without a fee. Is that not universal?
I do the same. And convert currencies at middle rate without a fee. And transfer to overseas banks and people without a fee. And use it as Mastercard in all countries. Without a fee.
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.
Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.
Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination
I can use my Revolut card as a pre-paid card in the UK without a fee. Is that not universal?
I do the same. And convert currencies at middle rate without a fee. And transfer to overseas banks and people without a fee. And use it as Mastercard in all countries. Without a fee.
I don't know how they make money.
Retailers will be paying to accept your card in all likelihood
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
I believe that there was a previous poster on here who in a spasm of rage about deliberately engineered and released Wuhan Flu, stated that we should all stop eating Chinese takeaways.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
London Edinburgh York Suffolk (excluding the Lowestoft area) Bristol (West End only) Bath The Cotswolds South Hams, Devon Durham (City) Isle of Skye
Large chunks of the Cornish coast, especially around Padstow, the Helford, St Mawes, Fowey, are hyper fashionable. On a sunny summer day the car parks by Roseland beaches are jammed with extremely expensive cars.
On the Header, perhaps Parliament could perambulate around various cathedrals and other civic spaces?
They are big enough, and routinely rearrange their facilities.
Could have some fun with organ introductions for each MP - Theme from Shaft for Mr Lammy, Death March for Mr MaoDonnell, Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh for certain Tories, and the tune from Roobarb and Custard for Boris.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.
And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.
London Edinburgh York Suffolk (excluding the Lowestoft area) Bristol (West End only) Bath The Cotswolds South Hams, Devon Durham (City) Isle of Skye
Large chunks of the Cornish coast, especially around Padstow, the Helford, St Mawes, Fowey, are hyper fashionable. On a sunny summer day the car parks by Roseland beaches are jammed with extremely expensive cars.
I would add parts of Dorset, too.
Thank-you.
Now I know where the dodgy people go, I can stick to elsewhere :-) .
The Lords could meet in one of the devolved capitals - Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. In Edinburgh there is even the Old Royal High building available for such use. They would be very welcome, I'm sure.
It might teach some - quite a few - of our Parliamentarians what life is like outside the fashionable parts of this country, what life is like in places which have a proud industrial heritage and history and which are now having to find alternative ways of earning a living. They would learn about the drugs problem it has and might start to think intelligently about it. They would also wonder about the state of the roads up here and why they are so shit. They could learn about what tidal barrages could do for the area. Etc etc.
It’s not a particularly fashionable place but it has some lovely buildings, a good museum, some good restaurants and is surrounded by gorgeous countryside. And it could do with the exposure, in a way that - with all respect - places like York and Birmingham don’t.
Already he's planning to stay in power whatever happens.
There's big big trouble coming in America.
Biden has already (cleverly IMHO) wargamed this, going as far as to publish a procedure for how to remove "a President who won't leave the White House".
The more this can be anticipated and planned for, the less of a "shock horror" moment it will be. Like planning to decommission an old nuclear reactor, it might be slow and expensive, but at least it can be done safely and professionally...
Visited our daughter and family today for the first time in 14 weeks and on coming home at lunchtime along the promenades from Old Colwyn to Rhos on Sea virtually every parking space taken, people everywhere on the promenades, beaches and beach cafes. However, most social distancing but it has to be said it was as busy as any sunday in july I have witnessed. Lots of happy people having a great time enjoying the amenities and weather. Seems to have got out of hand around Snowdon passes as hundreds of cars parked like idiots but most got parking tickets. Believe over 500 were issued
The economy must be bouncing back, let's hope covid stays under control
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.
And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.
Huawei hurts more.
Residency for the HKers is a slap in the face that stings, for the Chinese state.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.
And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.
My understanding of the China pattern is that there are huge harrumphing noises from Beijing for face-saving, then some measures are imposed, then they back down to a more normal position reasonably shortly afterwards.
Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.
Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?
Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?
And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.
Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.
Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.
State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.
State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.
Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.
There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.
While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation
Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.
Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.
Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination
I can use my Revolut card as a pre-paid card in the UK without a fee. Is that not universal?
I do the same. And convert currencies at middle rate without a fee. And transfer to overseas banks and people without a fee. And use it as Mastercard in all countries. Without a fee.
I don't know how they make money.
Retailers will be paying to accept your card in all likelihood
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.
And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.
Huawei hurts more.
Residency for the HKers is a slap in the face that stings, for the Chinese state.
Given that TikTok has decided not to build its HQ here “because of the geographic context” but that it could review its decision “if the situation changes” gives the lie to the fact these companies are unconnected to the Chinese state
It might teach some - quite a few - of our Parliamentarians what life is like outside the fashionable parts of this country, what life is like in places which have a proud industrial heritage and history and which are now having to find alternative ways of earning a living. They would learn about the drugs problem it has and might start to think intelligently about it. They would also wonder about the state of the roads up here and why they are so shit. They could learn about what tidal barrages could do for the area. Etc etc.
It’s not a particularly fashionable place but it has some lovely buildings, a good museum, some good restaurants and is surrounded by gorgeous countryside. And it could do with the exposure, in a way that - with all respect - places like York and Birmingham don’t.
It's got a football league team again too. And the beautiful Cartmel racecourse close by. Apart from its accessibility from almost anywhere else it has a lot going for it.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.
And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.
It's the signalling that is the problem. Call in the Ambassador and give him a public ticking off. Makes us feel good. Perhaps makes some of the Uighars feel good for a fleeting moment. But counter productive.
There are other ways. In private. UK: Tell me - why are you treating the Uighars this way when it has such a negative impact on your standing in the world? China: blah blah internal affairs blah blah UK: Suppose you were to do xyz. We could support you in that. China: How do you mean? UK: Well ...
I'm sure our diplomats could do a better job than me.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.
And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.
It's the signalling that is the problem. Call in the Ambassador and give him a public ticking off. Makes us feel good. Perhaps makes some of the Uighars feel good for a fleeting moment. But counter productive.
There are other ways. In private. UK: Tell me - why are you treating the Uighars this way when it has such a negative impact on your standing in the world? China: blah blah internal affairs blah blah UK: Suppose you were to do xyz. We could support you in that. China: How do you mean? UK: Well ...
I'm sure our diplomats could do a better job than me.
China views our transactional approach to strategic objectives with contempt. They do a deal in the short term and then release what they want. Look at how they broke the agreement we made on Hong Kong
House prices tend to hit new highs in weeks with no Maddie McCann news and when no dramatic weather is being forecast. If they don’t, the Express has to fall back on a Princess Di story.
London Edinburgh York Suffolk (excluding the Lowestoft area) Bristol (West End only) Bath The Cotswolds South Hams, Devon Durham (City) Isle of Skye
Large chunks of the Cornish coast, especially around Padstow, the Helford, St Mawes, Fowey, are hyper fashionable. On a sunny summer day the car parks by Roseland beaches are jammed with extremely expensive cars.
I would add parts of Dorset, too.
Do fashionable people drive expensive cars? Thought those were for fogeys.
House prices tend to hit new highs in weeks with no Maddie McCann news and when no dramatic weather is being forecast. If they don’t, the Express has to fall back on a Princess Di story.
Don't forget the weekly "Remainer Plot to stop Brexit." There was one today, apparently, even though we left.
It's less than the money saved by the Stamp Duty subsidy, they normally rise a little in summer anyway, and according to the Nationwide average prices are exactly 0.1% different from what they were this time last year.
In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.
But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.
If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.
Disagreed completely.
The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.
As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.
US 67,426 (Hong Kong) 66,527 Taiwan 57,214 UK 48,169 European Union 46,468 Russia 30,820 China 20,984
We don't need to become more like China.
Incredible that Taiwan has a GDP per capita so much higher than the UK.
70 years ago it was an island of peasants and rocks, with no natural resources.
If China can repeat that miracle on the mainland, China will eventually be four times bigger than the USA, in economic might. A big if, tho.
I haven’t seen regional stats for China but I suspect that the coastal cities do well and the other parts of the country are breadline
Absolutely right.
Places like Chengdu are developed.
Of course it is. Chengdu, Chongqing, Wuhan, plenty more.
But the coastal cities/zones as a whole are far, far ahead.
It might teach some - quite a few - of our Parliamentarians what life is like outside the fashionable parts of this country, what life is like in places which have a proud industrial heritage and history and which are now having to find alternative ways of earning a living. They would learn about the drugs problem it has and might start to think intelligently about it. They would also wonder about the state of the roads up here and why they are so shit. They could learn about what tidal barrages could do for the area. Etc etc.
It’s not a particularly fashionable place but it has some lovely buildings, a good museum, some good restaurants and is surrounded by gorgeous countryside. And it could do with the exposure, in a way that - with all respect - places like York and Birmingham don’t.
Would give them another excuse for nuclear deterrent grandstanding though.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.
And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.
It's the signalling that is the problem. Call in the Ambassador and give him a public ticking off. Makes us feel good. Perhaps makes some of the Uighars feel good for a fleeting moment. But counter productive.
There are other ways. In private. UK: Tell me - why are you treating the Uighars this way when it has such a negative impact on your standing in the world? China: blah blah internal affairs blah blah UK: Suppose you were to do xyz. We could support you in that. China: How do you mean? UK: Well ...
I'm sure our diplomats could do a better job than me.
That's only if they want our support more than they want to abuse the Uighars.
That though of course is why Thatcher didn't cut off relations with South Africa, because she could do more behind the scenes than with public and fleeting ticking offs. And for decades since people still want to talk about the lack of ticking offs and ignore what was happening behind the scenes.
Pub report - busier today but that's probably because the Spurs match was on and I was in North London.
Got chatting to one of the bar staff (who turned out to be the manager), she said it was getting better and they are hosting more evening events etc... to get punters in on weekdays, they've filled in all of the forms for the Sunak meals. She said there was a debate about reducing food prices because of the VAT cut but they decided not to bother because it pushes them into profit, but once punters are back they might do it.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything
Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect
What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.
The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs
Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s
Golly. That's prescient.
I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.
And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.
I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.
On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -
There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.
Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.
Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.
For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.
Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.
The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.
The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.
I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.
There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.
You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.
An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.
Just one point of view. But interesting.
Because they are provoking a backlash?
Or because she does not agree with their aims?
I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.
But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.
You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.
I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.
You said you agreed with my original post and yet you post this, comparing trans gender to trans species. I smell a rat.
Can I self-identify as white?
That's not trans species.
But if I can self-identify as a lady (assuming I wanted to), I can self-identify as white too, surely!
Why does that follow?
Race is a social construct. So we are told. It does not exist, biologically.
Now we are told sex/gender is a social construct. It has no reality outside our minds.
Logically, therefore, if you can self identify as a woman whatever your "sex", you can self identify as being of a different race
This is an active debate right now in academic circles. "Transracial identity"
Gender dysphoria is accepted and real. It's mainstream. The equivalent for race is not. Maybe one day - who knows - but as regards this debate in the here and now it clutters rather than illuminates. As those who throw it in know. That's the idea.
Every time you are confronted with an inconvenient argument or an awkward truth, you accuse your interlocutor of arguing in bad faith.
It gets REALLY boring, so shove it up your great big hairy mangina. Thanks.
Not bad faith. Just going off point. I like discipline. But people post what they want, don't they. Which of course is great. If everyone were like me it would be no fun whatsoever. We'd solve everything in 2 minutes and then be at a loose end.
Pub report - busier today but that's probably because the Spurs match was on and I was in North London.
Got chatting to one of the bar staff (who turned out to be the manager), she said it was getting better and they are hosting more evening events etc... to get punters in on weekdays, they've filled in all of the forms for the Sunak meals. She said there was a debate about reducing food prices because of the VAT cut but they decided not to bother because it pushes them into profit, but once punters are back they might do it.
That's why I was suggesting a VAT cut on this site for ages before it was announced.
That they are able to be in profit even with social distancing, even without their usual clientele . . . that is great news for them and good news for the economy.
It might teach some - quite a few - of our Parliamentarians what life is like outside the fashionable parts of this country, what life is like in places which have a proud industrial heritage and history and which are now having to find alternative ways of earning a living. They would learn about the drugs problem it has and might start to think intelligently about it. They would also wonder about the state of the roads up here and why they are so shit. They could learn about what tidal barrages could do for the area. Etc etc.
It’s not a particularly fashionable place but it has some lovely buildings, a good museum, some good restaurants and is surrounded by gorgeous countryside. And it could do with the exposure, in a way that - with all respect - places like York and Birmingham don’t.
It's got a football league team again too. And the beautiful Cartmel racecourse close by. Apart from its accessibility from almost anywhere else it has a lot going for it.
It’s just off the M6 so not that inaccessible.
But yes the fact that it is not that easy to get to is precisely why MPs should be made aware of the issue by realising what this is like - for real. Not just in a paper.
Or they could make Walney Airport a bit more user friendly.
And they could also learn about the whole of West Cumbria which is the less fashionable part and therefore tends to get forgotten even by the local authorities in Cumbria.
Er, you can get infected by aerosols going into your eyes. That's why nurses wear visors in ICUs
They wear visors and mask don't they? In any case aerosols float about as well as being projected directly at you, visors would only provide a barrier in the case of the former.
Er, you can get infected by aerosols going into your eyes. That's why nurses wear visors in ICUs
They wear visors and mask don't they? In any case aerosols float about as well as being projected directly at you, visors would only provide a barrier in the case of the former.
You seem to be under the delusion that "visors are pointless". An elementary error
Er, you can get infected by aerosols going into your eyes. That's why nurses wear visors in ICUs
They wear visors and mask don't they? In any case aerosols float about as well as being projected directly at you, visors would only provide a barrier in the case of the former.
You seem to be under the delusion that "visors are pointless". An elementary error
Ah, we're at the newt painting>Rioja>wants a pointless internet barney stage of the day.
Er, you can get infected by aerosols going into your eyes. That's why nurses wear visors in ICUs
They wear visors and mask don't they? In any case aerosols float about as well as being projected directly at you, visors would only provide a barrier in the case of the former.
You seem to be under the delusion that "visors are pointless". An elementary error
Ah, we're at the newt painting>Rioja>wants a pointless internet barney stage of the day.
I cannot deny it. I'm bored. But you did say a silly thing.
I'd not read that much into a summit involving so many nations, even within a political union, taking more than a long weekend to agree something. Frankily, the EU should see that sort of thing happen more often than is the case, it would show that there are full and frank discussions to be had about serious issues and they are not all sewn up beforehand.
That doesn't mean I don't think constant comments on how the EU is baffled or contemptual of nations taking different approaches to themselves is insulting (to the EU, as it suggests they are incredibly stupid to be either ignorant or openly arrogant and dismissive of those they would do business or interact with), but I can see the positives in them hashing things out at length.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.
And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.
Huawei hurts more.
Residency for the HKers is a slap in the face that stings, for the Chinese state.
Given that TikTok has decided not to build its HQ here “because of the geographic context” but that it could review its decision “if the situation changes” gives the lie to the fact these companies are unconnected to the Chinese state
I'm amazed they even have a pretence it is not so. It's like someone with an incredible obvious toupee getting pretend affronted if someone points it out, when not to acknowledge it would be to let the wearer advertise they think everyone else is stupid enought to fall for it.
Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise
If it does any good, absolutely it is.
If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.
So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.
Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
Punish?
Yes. That could start with censure.
Oh yes ... and then?
There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.
It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.
And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.
It's the signalling that is the problem. Call in the Ambassador and give him a public ticking off. Makes us feel good. Perhaps makes some of the Uighars feel good for a fleeting moment. But counter productive.
There are other ways. In private. UK: Tell me - why are you treating the Uighars this way when it has such a negative impact on your standing in the world? China: blah blah internal affairs blah blah UK: Suppose you were to do xyz. We could support you in that. China: How do you mean? UK: Well ...
I'm sure our diplomats could do a better job than me.
China views our transactional approach to strategic objectives with contempt. They do a deal in the short term and then release what they want. Look at how they broke the agreement we made on Hong Kong
Scotland views your transactional approach to strategic objectives with contempt. You do a deal in the short term and then release what you want. Look at how you broke the agreement you made on more powers.
It is gesture politics, and frustratingly effective to boot, since it might well not be serious but it is intended to be provocative and so demands a response.
Er, you can get infected by aerosols going into your eyes. That's why nurses wear visors in ICUs
They wear visors and mask don't they? In any case aerosols float about as well as being projected directly at you, visors would only provide a barrier in the case of the former.
You seem to be under the delusion that "visors are pointless". An elementary error
Ah, we're at the newt painting>Rioja>wants a pointless internet barney stage of the day.
I cannot deny it. I'm bored. But you did say a silly thing.
You wear a a mask and a visor when you pop out for a wee tube of Winsor & Newton titanium white do you?
What I mainly had in mind was supermarket workers, I haven't noticed much mask wearing but a few with visors. I'd imagine that by themselves visors would tend to be a comfort object rather than effective.
I do applaud their stamina. I don't think I've been angry or euphoric enough about anything to maintain that level of energy. I feel like I must be of tremendous disappointment to revolutionary types.
BBC2 doc on Trump now, currently focusing on when Trump's main focus was building a new golf course in Scotland rather than running the most powerful nation on earth
It might teach some - quite a few - of our Parliamentarians what life is like outside the fashionable parts of this country, what life is like in places which have a proud industrial heritage and history and which are now having to find alternative ways of earning a living. They would learn about the drugs problem it has and might start to think intelligently about it. They would also wonder about the state of the roads up here and why they are so shit. They could learn about what tidal barrages could do for the area. Etc etc.
It’s not a particularly fashionable place but it has some lovely buildings, a good museum, some good restaurants and is surrounded by gorgeous countryside. And it could do with the exposure, in a way that - with all respect - places like York and Birmingham don’t.
Plenty of MPs represent areas that are less than fashionable. Even in London they could find some if they wanted. I think it a bit strange to think that any parliamentarians incapable of grasping such issues would suddenly find themselves enlightened if they had to move their work to somewhere else. Anyone not able to grasp such issues would find new ways of not grasping them.
London Edinburgh York Suffolk (excluding the Lowestoft area) Bristol (West End only) Bath The Cotswolds South Hams, Devon Durham (City) Isle of Skye
London is a bit too broad, as it includes Barking and Dagenham, West Ham, Bexley and Croydon which are not really fashionable on any definition. West London and North London might be better.
Stratford on Avon, Oxford, St Andrews, Harrogate, Salisbury, Winchester, St Albans, St Ives, Sandbanks and Brighton could also be added
I do applaud their stamina. I don't think I've been angry or euphoric enough about anything to maintain that level of energy. I feel like I must be of tremendous disappointment to revolutionary types.
Do the protestors not worry that the central 'Black lives matter' message that is one of anti-police brutality might potentially come across as 'Smash shit up for the sake of it ?' Just an observation.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_ethnicity_in_the_United_Kingdom#Self-definition
The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early
I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?
A medical opinion of gender dysmorphia is quite a different thing.
The Three Kingdoms War is the Chinese one that I think wiki means
The War of the Three Kingdoms is what used to be known as the English Civil War
London
Edinburgh
York
Suffolk (excluding the Lowestoft area)
Bristol (West End only)
Bath
The Cotswolds
South Hams, Devon
Durham (City)
Isle of Skye
You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
I don't know how they make money.
That'd larn 'em.
I would add parts of Dorset, too.
They are big enough, and routinely rearrange their facilities.
Could have some fun with organ introductions for each MP - Theme from Shaft for Mr Lammy, Death March for Mr MaoDonnell, Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh for certain Tories, and the tune from Roobarb and Custard for Boris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedq1VhaS90
And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.
Already he's planning to stay in power whatever happens.
There's big big trouble coming in America.
Now I know where the dodgy people go, I can stick to elsewhere :-) .
(Edited)
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1284953865813622786?s=20
It might teach some - quite a few - of our Parliamentarians what life is like outside the fashionable parts of this country, what life is like in places which have a proud industrial heritage and history and which are now having to find alternative ways of earning a living. They would learn about the drugs problem it has and might start to think intelligently about it. They would also wonder about the state of the roads up here and why they are so shit. They could learn about what tidal barrages could do for the area. Etc etc.
It’s not a particularly fashionable place but it has some lovely buildings, a good museum, some good restaurants and is surrounded by gorgeous countryside. And it could do with the exposure, in a way that - with all respect - places like York and Birmingham don’t.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1284957090541436931
The more this can be anticipated and planned for, the less of a "shock horror" moment it will be. Like planning to decommission an old nuclear reactor, it might be slow and expensive, but at least it can be done safely and professionally...
The economy must be bouncing back, let's hope covid stays under control
Residency for the HKers is a slap in the face that stings, for the Chinese state.
Also they get to play bank with the deposits.
Apart from its accessibility from almost anywhere else it has a lot going for it.
There are other ways. In private.
UK: Tell me - why are you treating the Uighars this way when it has such a negative impact on your standing in the world?
China: blah blah internal affairs blah blah
UK: Suppose you were to do xyz. We could support you in that.
China: How do you mean?
UK: Well ...
I'm sure our diplomats could do a better job than me.
There was one today, apparently, even though we left.
It's less than the money saved by the Stamp Duty subsidy, they normally rise a little in summer anyway, and according to the Nationwide average prices are exactly 0.1% different from what they were this time last year.
https://www.nationwide.co.uk/-/media/MainSite/documents/about/house-price-index/2020/Jun_Q2_2020.pdf
But the coastal cities/zones as a whole are far, far ahead.
That though of course is why Thatcher didn't cut off relations with South Africa, because she could do more behind the scenes than with public and fleeting ticking offs. And for decades since people still want to talk about the lack of ticking offs and ignore what was happening behind the scenes.
https://twitter.com/EUwatchers/status/1284910214194634752?s=20
https://twitter.com/ProsinPlanet/status/1284910570974609416?s=20
Got chatting to one of the bar staff (who turned out to be the manager), she said it was getting better and they are hosting more evening events etc... to get punters in on weekdays, they've filled in all of the forms for the Sunak meals. She said there was a debate about reducing food prices because of the VAT cut but they decided not to bother because it pushes them into profit, but once punters are back they might do it.
https://twitter.com/Dr2NisreenAlwan/status/1284798530876518401?s=20
That they are able to be in profit even with social distancing, even without their usual clientele . . . that is great news for them and good news for the economy.
Well done Sunak and well done to them.
But yes the fact that it is not that easy to get to is precisely why MPs should be made aware of the issue by realising what this is like - for real. Not just in a paper.
Or they could make Walney Airport a bit more user friendly.
And they could also learn about the whole of West Cumbria which is the less fashionable part and therefore tends to get forgotten even by the local authorities in Cumbria.
That doesn't mean I don't think constant comments on how the EU is baffled or contemptual of nations taking different approaches to themselves is insulting (to the EU, as it suggests they are incredibly stupid to be either ignorant or openly arrogant and dismissive of those they would do business or interact with), but I can see the positives in them hashing things out at length.
How many days is this now? 50?
https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1284964180819234816?s=20
What I mainly had in mind was supermarket workers, I haven't noticed much mask wearing but a few with visors. I'd imagine that by themselves visors would tend to be a comfort object rather than effective.
This is not part of the Mexican army, these are not Mexican special forces or cops
They are footsoldiers working for a drug cartel
https://twitter.com/hdemauleon/status/1284278015330066432?s=20
Stratford on Avon, Oxford, St Andrews, Harrogate, Salisbury, Winchester, St Albans, St Ives, Sandbanks and Brighton could also be added
Just an observation.