When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because kids at primary school can't be left at home on their own.
Nick has no kids. He does not get it. Kids under 14-15 need childcare, even if it is light touch with the older ones.
That means millions of parents staying home, more or less.
If the parents cannot work because everything is shut down, they’ll be at home anyway, no?
I don’t understand - does anyone? what “everything” means?
Working from home like in March, presumably? My mates with kids found it utterly, utterly exhausting - they were ineffective parents and ineffective workers. If we are to have a lockdown, which I really hope we don't, keeping the schools open is very much worth the slightly increased risk, IMO.
I suspect most exemptions, not used in March, would be used fully this time. I stopped trading entirely for about a month; I won't be this time. Our online business will continue every single day.
Not all businesses can work from home. Electricians? Builders? Etc.
Building sites were allowed to continue throughout, last time, I think? From memory lots of people were designated key workers and permitted to continue. Given we're not in the same state as March, would seem utterly barmy to be stricter than then.
Personally, I don't see this happening. I suspect the Treasury will end up as grown ups and call a halt to such nonsense.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
There are countries in Europe that majority Muslim. Not sure what this talk of enclaves really means in that context.
2 and ½ plus one unrecognized? Albania, Kosovo, the European part of Turkey, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Any others?
Off the top of my head, that's what I was thinking of too. Can't rightly say I've not missed one though.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because the government has already committed to keeping them open come what may, even though the evidence now says we should close them first.
.
What evidence? The scientific picture is very confused (not unusual for a new disease). I have not seen any clear-cut evidence.
Ceredigion has two universities within its boundaries (Aberystwyth, Lampeter) & one of the lowest COVID rates in the UK. So, it is easy to find counter-examples.
There were quite a few cases early doors at Aberystwyth. Gone quiet there now. Are cases being reported where students actually live?
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I agree wholeheartedly with your final sentence.
One of my sons is meant to start a new job on Thursday. So pleased to get it. If there is a national lockdown there will likely be no job ........ 😢
Daughter has already prepared for closure of her business. She is in despair.
Other son has an essential job in food.
If everything is shut down again the economic pain for them will be appalling.
One could almost think there is active malice towards people like your children.
I've borrowed about £40,000 to keep my business afloat, but that can't continue indefinitely.
All 3 are pretty depressed. And I don’t just mean a bit fed up. I am really very worried indeed about them.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
There are countries in Europe that majority Muslim. Not sure what this talk of enclaves really means in that context.
2 and ½ plus one unrecognized? Albania, Kosovo, the European part of Turkey, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Any others?
Forgot Bosnia and Herzegovina
Not sure that this makes your point, though, Roy. Albania was essentially a closed country until relatively recently, and all of B&H, Kosovo and the Turks in Cyprus were pretty much enclaves within Christian countries. European Turkey is it's own story.
Perhaps he can tell us which European countries have a successful track and trace ?
Why only European countries?
Because its good to compare like with like.
Now perhaps China has an excellent track and trace but the authorities can be more persuasive there.
Well, naturally, China is not a model many would want to emulate. But you're kicking a straw man in response to a simple question. It obvious that some countries DO have effective test and trace, but you want to restrict the conversation to only European countries. Fair enough if you think that comparing like with like is important -- it can be -- but what is it about European countries that are alike that we can't say about, say, South Korea or New Zealand or other non-European countries?
South Korea spent 5 years building their surveillance system that enables efficient track and trace. Who else has one that works with any sort of case level? Germany says not possible. Some suggestion Japan does, China just weld millions in their homes and Australia / New Zealand go for Lockdown Harder with a Vengeance at the first sign of any COVID, rather than relying on any real track and trace.
Yeah, South Korea has taken the problem seriously, and their foresight has paid dividends. And some will say that Asia had a massive head start because they had the example of Sars to learn from. But this is precisely my point. We should not be looking only within our own region. The failure of a neighbour is not a laurel to rest upon. It is a baffling dearth of imagination to look at the UK response's, shrug, and point at France. Successive governments have failed to plan, and we ought to be holding them to a higher standard. Right now we seem content with just lumping us in with EU countries and noting that we're in the top 25. I thought our ambition was bigger than that.
The UK public wouldn't accept an ID card and the Guardianista types are up in arms about facial recognition and police spying on various groups, and you think a UK government could develop a system specifically designed to go well beyond terrorist surveillance and spy on every aspects of all ordinary citizens lives....on the off chance we might get a once in a 100 year pandemic. Never going to fly.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
Both my sons are in their final undergraduate years at University. One has had a bill for £9250 and the other for £9000. Neither has physically been in the presence of a lecturer since mid March. In essence academic year 2019/20 lasted from October until mid March, and this one is so far fully online. One is also paying hall fees.
The Open University charges around £3000 for a superior level of tuition.
Sold down the river, or what?
Presumably the NUS or someone are at least exploring challenging the legality of these fees when the courses havent been delivered? They might even succeed with just a good viral PR campaign - thats the kind of virus we need to see more of!
Perhaps he can tell us which European countries have a successful track and trace ?
Why only European countries?
Because its good to compare like with like.
Now perhaps China has an excellent track and trace but the authorities can be more persuasive there.
Well, naturally, China is not a model many would want to emulate. But you're kicking a straw man in response to a simple question. It obvious that some countries DO have effective test and trace, but you want to restrict the conversation to only European countries. Fair enough if you think that comparing like with like is important -- it can be -- but what is it about European countries that are alike that we can't say about, say, South Korea or New Zealand or other non-European countries?
South Korea spent 5 years building their surveillance system that enables efficient track and trace. Who else has one that works with any sort of case level? Germany says not possible. Some suggestion Japan does, China just weld millions in their homes and Australia / New Zealand go for Lockdown Harder with a Vengeance at the first sign of any COVID, rather than relying on any real track and trace.
Yeah, South Korea has taken the problem seriously, and their foresight has paid dividends. And some will say that Asia had a massive head start because they had the example of Sars to learn from. But this is precisely my point. We should not be looking only within our own region. The failure of a neighbour is not a laurel to rest upon. It is a baffling dearth of imagination to look at the UK response's, shrug, and point at France. Successive governments have failed to plan, and we ought to be holding them to a higher standard. Right now we seem content with just lumping us in with EU countries and noting that we're in the top 25. I thought our ambition was bigger than that.
Its possible to make long term plans and they may be the right thing to do.
But the idea that there are simple solutions which can be sorted in a fortnight, as the Owen Jones tweet implies, is bollox.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
There are countries in Europe that majority Muslim. Not sure what this talk of enclaves really means in that context.
2 and ½ plus one unrecognized? Albania, Kosovo, the European part of Turkey, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Any others?
Ugh, I misread your post. I wasn't thinking Kosovo, but Bosnia.
So that's one country...one...that spent 5 years and spying on your every movement, every payment you make, every interaction you have.
Given that the UK has lead the world in mass-surveillance in the past I'm sure we collect the data. GCHQ doesn't run "internet buffers" and tap hundreds of undersea cables, and have technical agreements with essentially all carriers and ISPs, and connect directly into airline and banking systems just for fun. But we like to pretend that none of this exists, so if it doesn't exist we can't use it to fight COVID-19.
There is a huge difference between using these tools for targeted spying on a number of individuals, which definitely goes on, and expanding that to cover everybody. If we really had the tech to precisely track every Islamist terrorist in real time, we wouldn't have had so many of the attacks over the past few years, where it is always the same story, known to the authorities, but unable to track them because more serious people under watch.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because the government has already committed to keeping them open come what may, even though the evidence now says we should close them first.
.
What evidence? The scientific picture is very confused (not unusual for a new disease). I have not seen any clear-cut evidence.
Ceredigion has two universities within its boundaries (Aberystwyth, Lampeter) & one of the lowest COVID rates in the UK. So, it is easy to find counter-examples.
There were quite a few cases early doors at Aberystwyth. Gone quiet there now. Are cases being reported where students actually live?
They are reported at the address with which they are registered with a GP. Rates of registering with a GP at your university address vs just staying with your home GP vary considerably by university (and, to some extent, gender).
Wonder how the Muslim population feels about "saving Christmas"? Given they're presumably about to be locked down for Diwali to save it.
What has Diwali got to do with muslims?
Oops. Sorry. Hindus.
"All them brown people look the same to me!"
What is the festival where folks throw colored water around? Here in Seattle area this is celebrated by local Hindus at a large park in Redmond, home base for Microsoft.
Holi.
It's been kind of "secularised" in this country, with Holi-themed music festivals and the like.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I agree wholeheartedly with your final sentence.
One of my sons is meant to start a new job on Thursday. So pleased to get it. If there is a national lockdown there will likely be no job ........ 😢
Daughter has already prepared for closure of her business. She is in despair.
Other son has an essential job in food.
If everything is shut down again the economic pain for them will be appalling.
One could almost think there is active malice towards people like your children.
I've borrowed about £40,000 to keep my business afloat, but that can't continue indefinitely.
All 3 are pretty depressed. And I don’t just mean a bit fed up. I am really very worried indeed about them.
Really sorry to hear that. I'm sure you're providing much more support than you feel like you are. Its a horrible, horrible time.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
There are countries in Europe that majority Muslim. Not sure what this talk of enclaves really means in that context.
2 and ½ plus one unrecognized? Albania, Kosovo, the European part of Turkey, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Any others?
Bosnia has a Muslim plurality, if you count the Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats separately.
Anyone asking the question of the sages at SAGE that if we are now on course to exceed their”worst case scenario” then perhaps they are not quite so expert at scenario planning as they thought?
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
I got my £12,300 invoice today.
Can you use your legal skills to get it cancelled/reduced somehow?
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
Both my sons are in their final undergraduate years at University. One has had a bill for £9250 and the other for £9000. Neither has physically been in the presence of a lecturer since mid March. In essence academic year 2019/20 lasted from October until mid March, and this one is so far fully online. One is also paying hall fees.
The Open University charges around £3000 for a superior level of tuition.
Sold down the river, or what?
Presumably the NUS or someone are at least exploring challenging the legality of these fees when the courses havent been delivered? They might even succeed with just a good viral PR campaign - thats the kind of virus we need to see more of!
I don't know. I would imagine there will be future litigation.
I am going to love Owen Jones arguing why don't we have state surveillance like South Korea so we can effectively track and trace, when he would be one of the first launching a campaign at any suggestion that the UK government has developed similar tech which could be deployed against anybody.
I presume he was less than impressed with the stuff Snowdon revealed.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
Agreed. It was @isam who mentioned civil war. And of course there has been worse terrorism for decades in some parts. But there is a very fundamental challenge here Because you cannot have a compromise with people who want to impose an Islamic blasphemy law. You either have one or you don’t. This is not about people demanding freedoms for themselves which are being denied by an oppressive state. But about people wanting to limit other peoples’ freedoms on the basis of a religious diktat others do not share - and seeking to use violence to achieve their ends.
There can - and should be - only one winner in such a battle and it cannot be those who seek to limit freedom. I hope we can get there without more trouble, I really do.
But check out the comments under today’s Times article on the French terror attack. If they are in any way representative, it does not bode well.
Those who want to have a more honest debate about the failing of the government approach should be surrounded about a proactive set of long term plans, do we go for regular mini-lockdowns or should we have tried to have a consistent set of national restrictions that were going to be in place come rain or shine until a vaccine was deployed. What should we have done in regards to foreign travel and about isolation of those arriving. What to do with those who test positive.
These are all the sorts of things that can really make a difference to the passage of the virus.
Perhaps he can tell us which European countries have a successful track and trace ?
Why only European countries?
Because its good to compare like with like.
Now perhaps China has an excellent track and trace but the authorities can be more persuasive there.
Well, naturally, China is not a model many would want to emulate. But you're kicking a straw man in response to a simple question. It obvious that some countries DO have effective test and trace, but you want to restrict the conversation to only European countries. Fair enough if you think that comparing like with like is important -- it can be -- but what is it about European countries that are alike that we can't say about, say, South Korea or New Zealand or other non-European countries?
South Korea spent 5 years building their surveillance system that enables efficient track and trace. Who else has one that works with any sort of case level? Germany says not possible. Some suggestion Japan does (but they have kept cases lowers through a range of over measures), China just weld millions in their homes and Australia / New Zealand go for Lockdown Harder with a Vengeance at the first sign of any COVID, rather than relying on any real track and trace.
So that's one country...one...that spent 5 years and spying on your every movement, every payment you make, every interaction you have.
Taiwan? Vietnam? Thailand? For whatever reasons, Asian countries have handled this much better than anyone else, and they are not all super-hi-tech like South Korea
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
I got my £12,300 invoice today.
Can you use your legal skills to get it cancelled/reduced somehow?
I'm not an undergraduate student - I am postgraduate, but I will give it a read. Thank you for taking a look!
To be honest I'm more focused on trying to do as well as possible and forge a future career out of the ashes of this shitshow than trying to start a fight with the university.
Perhaps he can tell us which European countries have a successful track and trace ?
Why only European countries?
Because its good to compare like with like.
Now perhaps China has an excellent track and trace but the authorities can be more persuasive there.
Well, naturally, China is not a model many would want to emulate. But you're kicking a straw man in response to a simple question. It obvious that some countries DO have effective test and trace, but you want to restrict the conversation to only European countries. Fair enough if you think that comparing like with like is important -- it can be -- but what is it about European countries that are alike that we can't say about, say, South Korea or New Zealand or other non-European countries?
South Korea spent 5 years building their surveillance system that enables efficient track and trace. Who else has one that works with any sort of case level? Germany says not possible. Some suggestion Japan does (but they have kept cases lowers through a range of over measures), China just weld millions in their homes and Australia / New Zealand go for Lockdown Harder with a Vengeance at the first sign of any COVID, rather than relying on any real track and trace.
So that's one country...one...that spent 5 years and spying on your every movement, every payment you make, every interaction you have.
Taiwan? Vietnam? Thailand? For whatever reasons, Asian countries have handled this much better than anyone else, and they are not all super-hi-tech like South Korea
Do any of those proper track and trace though. That was the question. To be fair, I think Singapore does.
There are definitely countries who have faired well, but as far as I can think, South Korea is the only one that has shown an ability when cases started to rise rapidly to use track and trace to crush it (and have done so twice). Other countries just never got into those situations, normally via locking down super hard. Everybody else that has tried this we can have some restrictions when cases rise and track and trace the way out have failed.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
But there is a very fundamental challenge here Because you cannot have a compromise with people who want to impose an Islamic blasphemy law. You either have one or you don’t. This is not about people demanding freedoms for themselves which are being denied by an oppressive state. But about people wanting to limit other peoples’ freedoms on the basis of a religious diktat others do not share - and seeking to use violence to achieve their ends.
Quite so. And there's plenty of superficially comdemnatory comments which, after a passing glance, are still in effect seeking to limit the freedom of others, a lot of the 'I don't condone what happened but' talk. I don't doubt almost all such people really do not condone violent acts, but the effect of their placing their wish not to be offended above the freedom of others puts them on the wrong side of the dividing line. And it is a line.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
Both my sons are in their final undergraduate years at University. One has had a bill for £9250 and the other for £9000. Neither has physically been in the presence of a lecturer since mid March. In essence academic year 2019/20 lasted from October until mid March, and this one is so far fully online. One is also paying hall fees.
The Open University charges around £3000 for a superior level of tuition.
Sold down the river, or what?
Presumably the NUS or someone are at least exploring challenging the legality of these fees when the courses havent been delivered? They might even succeed with just a good viral PR campaign - thats the kind of virus we need to see more of!
I don't know. I would imagine there will be future litigation.
My guess is that -- for courses in which some of the teaching has not been delivered -- a partial rebate is absolutely inevitable.
So, this includes any course that involves practical work (e.g. almost all the sciences). The practicals will not have been possible because of COVID restrictions, so students did not receive the training they might have legitimately expected.
And once the principle of a (partial) rebate for some courses has been established, then I am sure it will be easier to just apply it to all courses.
Doesn't matter if that is the case. Other parts of the UK are locking down harder, places in Europe are all over the place, and the headline figures here look ghastly and out of control, and people support doing something harsh. Sure, they'll complain about the consequences of that harshness too, but when popular will and politics back it, it'd take a tougher government than this to resist, particularly when proving that not doing it will be better is nigh on impossible.
Johnson is surely now a hostage to fortune. He has repeatedly stated no fire breaks. This morning (Friday) Raab stated no circuit breaker. The reactionary wing of the Conservative Party don't want a U-turn and have him by the nuts. He is impotent as far as Covid policy is concerned. He has to continue to blag the three tier system.
Well at least Boris and Carrie seem to be back on, so happy days.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I agree wholeheartedly with your final sentence.
One of my sons is meant to start a new job on Thursday. So pleased to get it. If there is a national lockdown there will likely be no job ........ 😢
Daughter has already prepared for closure of her business. She is in despair.
Other son has an essential job in food.
If everything is shut down again the economic pain for them will be appalling.
One could almost think there is active malice towards people like your children.
I've borrowed about £40,000 to keep my business afloat, but that can't continue indefinitely.
All 3 are pretty depressed. And I don’t just mean a bit fed up. I am really very worried indeed about them.
Really sorry to hear that. I'm sure you're providing much more support than you feel like you are. Its a horrible, horrible time.
I came down to London to mother the boys a few days ago and am hoping that can take one back for a few days holiday.
But if these reports are right I may have to flee home again.
Anyone asking the question of the sages at SAGE that if we are now on course to exceed their”worst case scenario” then perhaps they are not quite so expert at scenario planning as they thought?
Indeed.
If the current situation is many times worse than SAGE's worst case scenario then they effectively didn't predict the possibility of a second wave in autumn.
Which makes them so complacently incompetent that their only honourable course of action is to resign and become politicians.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
Agreed. It was @isam who mentioned civil war. And of course there has been worse terrorism for decades in some parts. But there is a very fundamental challenge here Because you cannot have a compromise with people who want to impose an Islamic blasphemy law. You either have one or you don’t. This is not about people demanding freedoms for themselves which are being denied by an oppressive state. But about people wanting to limit other peoples’ freedoms on the basis of a religious diktat others do not share - and seeking to use violence to achieve their ends.
There can - and should be - only one winner in such a battle and it cannot be those who seek to limit freedom. I hope we can get there without more trouble, I really do.
But check out the comments under today’s Times article on the French terror attack. If they are in any way representative, it does not bode well.
The answer is simple, you dont have the blasphemy law, dont compromise with the demands for one, then most people get on with life as normal but sadly there are occasional but ongoing terrorist attacks. We have lived with them before and can cope with them in the future too.
The expenses scandal revealed the mild-crookedness of many MPs, COVID-19 has revealed a large number of the members of parliament to be innumerate, lacking even basic scientific knowledge, and incapable of extrapolation and planning. To put it bluntly I would guess that at least half of all MPs are essentially useless.
And 90% of the other half are positively dangerous.
I'm not even joking, we live in an ever increasingly technological and scientifically driven world, and the people who legislate for and govern us are in many cases completely out of their depth.
Dare I say it: too many Oxbridge humanities graduates.
Too many Oxford graduates full stop.
Too many people who think alike, too many people driven by doctrine, and too many people unwilling to question their own side. Now I'm not saying a parliament full of free-thinkers would work — cat herding comes to mind — but listening to MPs endlessly trotting out the tripe that their party has decided is today's "thought" is wearying.
Fundamentally the problem is our Parliamentary system, which could just about muddle through some of the great crises of the last 300 years, doesn't really have a clear idea what it is there to do any more. We've bolted more and more responsibility onto Members of Parliament over the years - they're no longer legislators or statemen/women, they're a Frankenstein's Monster of spokesperson, lobby fodder, untrained caseworker, and general community punching bag.
Almost every aspect of an MP's work life is set up to make them as unproductive, miserable and ineffective as possible. Nowadays, their work revolves around an email inbox, which fills up every day with potentially hundreds of emails on hundreds of topics (this will be casework on behalf of constituents, invitations to various events, inquiries about Government policy, complaints, frequent death threats, lobbying emails from fellow MPs, Whips etc). This is absolutely terrible for their mental health, and means that a lot of these emails get passed on to staffers, most of whom are completely untrained, underpaid and usually doing it as their first real job. It's shit for everyone involved -the MPs, who are stressed constantly, the staffers, who end up putting in stupid hours for little reward, and the people contacting their MPs, who get frustrated and don't have proper caseworker support.
And then we have the braindead idea of getting Ministers to do their Ministerial work ON TOP OF their stressful MP work, for a fraction of the pay they'd expect for a similar job in the private sector.
The reality is that most backbenchers don't need to be in Parliament as most of what they do is vote for the Government's bills, do casework (poorly) and develop ulsers, and most Ministers definitely shouldn't be in Parliament, because it makes it much harder to do what should be their main job, running the country.
I'd halve the number of MPs, double their pay, prevent MPs from serving as Government Ministers (they need to be appointed to the Lords first or something), and strip responsibility for casework from them and give it to a specialist caseworker unit operated by IPSA or Citizen's Advice. This would just be plaster on the wider institutional problems but it'd be a start.
The expenses scandal revealed the mild-crookedness of many MPs, COVID-19 has revealed a large number of the members of parliament to be innumerate, lacking even basic scientific knowledge, and incapable of extrapolation and planning. To put it bluntly I would guess that at least half of all MPs are essentially useless.
And 90% of the other half are positively dangerous.
I'm not even joking, we live in an ever increasingly technological and scientifically driven world, and the people who legislate for and govern us are in many cases completely out of their depth.
Dare I say it: too many Oxbridge humanities graduates.
Too many Oxford graduates full stop.
Too many people who think alike, too many people driven by doctrine, and too many people unwilling to question their own side. Now I'm not saying a parliament full of free-thinkers would work — cat herding comes to mind — but listening to MPs endlessly trotting out the tripe that their party has decided is today's "thought" is wearying.
Fundamentally the problem is our Parliamentary system, which could just about muddle through some of the great crises of the last 300 years, doesn't really have a clear idea what it is there to do any more. We've bolted more and more responsibility onto Members of Parliament over the years - they're no longer legislators or statemen/women, they're a Frankenstein's Monster of spokesperson, lobby fodder, untrained caseworker, and general community punching bag.
Almost every aspect of an MP's work life is set up to make them as unproductive, miserable and ineffective as possible. Nowadays, their work revolves around an email inbox, which fills up every day with potentially hundreds of emails on hundreds of topics (this will be casework on behalf of constituents, invitations to various events, inquiries about Government policy, complaints, frequent death threats, lobbying emails from fellow MPs, Whips etc). This is absolutely terrible for their mental health, and means that a lot of these emails get passed on to staffers, most of whom are completely untrained, underpaid and usually doing it as their first real job. It's shit for everyone involved -the MPs, who are stressed constantly, the staffers, who end up putting in stupid hours for little reward, and the people contacting their MPs, who get frustrated and don't have proper caseworker support.
And then we have the braindead idea of getting Ministers to do their Ministerial work ON TOP OF their stressful MP work, for a fraction of the pay they'd expect for a similar job in the private sector.
The reality is that most backbenchers don't need to be in Parliament as most of what they do is vote for the Government's bills, do casework (poorly) and develop ulsers, and most Ministers definitely shouldn't be in Parliament, because it makes it much harder to do what should be their main job, running the country.
I'd halve the number of MPs, double their pay, prevent MPs from serving as Government Ministers (they need to be appointed to the Lords first or something), and strip responsibility for casework from them and give it to a specialist caseworker unit operated by IPSA or Citizen's Advice. This would just be plaster on the wider institutional problems but it'd be a start.
Great post. I might not agree with all the proposed solutions, but while they don't help themselves when they get there, what we expect and demand of the role is not working, so now even when they want to try to do the job well they probably cannot.
Doesn't matter if that is the case. Other parts of the UK are locking down harder, places in Europe are all over the place, and the headline figures here look ghastly and out of control, and people support doing something harsh. Sure, they'll complain about the consequences of that harshness too, but when popular will and politics back it, it'd take a tougher government than this to resist, particularly when proving that not doing it will be better is nigh on impossible.
Johnson is surely now a hostage to fortune. He has repeatedly stated no fire breaks. This morning (Friday) Raab stated no circuit breaker. The reactionary wing of the Conservative Party don't want a U-turn and have him by the nuts. He is impotent as far as Covid policy is concerned. He has to continue to blag the three tier system.
Well at least Boris and Carrie seem to be back on, so happy days.
We wont have a fire break or a circuit break, it shall be a Churchillian interlude.
Anyone asking the question of the sages at SAGE that if we are now on course to exceed their”worst case scenario” then perhaps they are not quite so expert at scenario planning as they thought?
Indeed.
If the current situation is many times worse than SAGE's worst case scenario then they effectively didn't predict the possibility of a second wave in autumn.
Which makes them so complacently incompetent that their only honourable course of action is to resign and become politicians.
Jonathan van Tam: “masks are completely useless, a friend in Hong Kong agrees with me”. April, 2020
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
Both my sons are in their final undergraduate years at University. One has had a bill for £9250 and the other for £9000. Neither has physically been in the presence of a lecturer since mid March. In essence academic year 2019/20 lasted from October until mid March, and this one is so far fully online. One is also paying hall fees.
The Open University charges around £3000 for a superior level of tuition.
Sold down the river, or what?
Well, I'm a lecturer and have been working harder than ever trying to get everything online, in a variety of formats, with online tutorials and virtual field trips. There's plenty of tuition going on. Students are free to defer until next year, even now. Not sure why I should be providing a service that takes up more of my time than usual, yet that should be free?
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
Agreed. It was @isam who mentioned civil war. And of course there has been worse terrorism for decades in some parts. But there is a very fundamental challenge here Because you cannot have a compromise with people who want to impose an Islamic blasphemy law. You either have one or you don’t. This is not about people demanding freedoms for themselves which are being denied by an oppressive state. But about people wanting to limit other peoples’ freedoms on the basis of a religious diktat others do not share - and seeking to use violence to achieve their ends.
There can - and should be - only one winner in such a battle and it cannot be those who seek to limit freedom. I hope we can get there without more trouble, I really do.
But check out the comments under today’s Times article on the French terror attack. If they are in any way representative, it does not bode well.
The answer is simple, you dont have the blasphemy law, dont compromise with the demands for one, then most people get on with life as normal but sadly there are occasional but ongoing terrorist attacks. We have lived with them before and can cope with them in the future too.
Perhaps he can tell us which European countries have a successful track and trace ?
Why only European countries?
Because its good to compare like with like.
Now perhaps China has an excellent track and trace but the authorities can be more persuasive there.
Well, naturally, China is not a model many would want to emulate. But you're kicking a straw man in response to a simple question. It obvious that some countries DO have effective test and trace, but you want to restrict the conversation to only European countries. Fair enough if you think that comparing like with like is important -- it can be -- but what is it about European countries that are alike that we can't say about, say, South Korea or New Zealand or other non-European countries?
South Korea spent 5 years building their surveillance system that enables efficient track and trace. Who else has one that works with any sort of case level? Germany says not possible. Some suggestion Japan does (but they have kept cases lowers through a range of over measures), China just weld millions in their homes and Australia / New Zealand go for Lockdown Harder with a Vengeance at the first sign of any COVID, rather than relying on any real track and trace.
So that's one country...one...that spent 5 years and spying on your every movement, every payment you make, every interaction you have.
Taiwan? Vietnam? Thailand? For whatever reasons, Asian countries have handled this much better than anyone else, and they are not all super-hi-tech like South Korea
They don't have the same concept of privacy that we do which makes it much easier for them to do things like track and trace.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
Agreed. It was @isam who mentioned civil war. And of course there has been worse terrorism for decades in some parts. But there is a very fundamental challenge here Because you cannot have a compromise with people who want to impose an Islamic blasphemy law. You either have one or you don’t. This is not about people demanding freedoms for themselves which are being denied by an oppressive state. But about people wanting to limit other peoples’ freedoms on the basis of a religious diktat others do not share - and seeking to use violence to achieve their ends.
There can - and should be - only one winner in such a battle and it cannot be those who seek to limit freedom. I hope we can get there without more trouble, I really do.
But check out the comments under today’s Times article on the French terror attack. If they are in any way representative, it does not bode well.
The answer is simple, you dont have the blasphemy law, dont compromise with the demands for one, then most people get on with life as normal but sadly there are occasional but ongoing terrorist attacks. We have lived with them before and can cope with them in the future too.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
Agreed. It was @isam who mentioned civil war. And of course there has been worse terrorism for decades in some parts. But there is a very fundamental challenge here Because you cannot have a compromise with people who want to impose an Islamic blasphemy law. You either have one or you don’t. This is not about people demanding freedoms for themselves which are being denied by an oppressive state. But about people wanting to limit other peoples’ freedoms on the basis of a religious diktat others do not share - and seeking to use violence to achieve their ends.
There can - and should be - only one winner in such a battle and it cannot be those who seek to limit freedom. I hope we can get there without more trouble, I really do.
But check out the comments under today’s Times article on the French terror attack. If they are in any way representative, it does not bode well.
The answer is simple, you dont have the blasphemy law, dont compromise with the demands for one, then most people get on with life as normal but sadly there are occasional but ongoing terrorist attacks. We have lived with them before and can cope with them in the future too.
Why deny following far right twitters so vehemently all evening and then post Brittany Sellner, partner of Austrian far right leader and more importantly a promoter of the murderer of 51 people in NZ?
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
Agreed. It was @isam who mentioned civil war. And of course there has been worse terrorism for decades in some parts. But there is a very fundamental challenge here Because you cannot have a compromise with people who want to impose an Islamic blasphemy law. You either have one or you don’t. This is not about people demanding freedoms for themselves which are being denied by an oppressive state. But about people wanting to limit other peoples’ freedoms on the basis of a religious diktat others do not share - and seeking to use violence to achieve their ends.
There can - and should be - only one winner in such a battle and it cannot be those who seek to limit freedom. I hope we can get there without more trouble, I really do.
But check out the comments under today’s Times article on the French terror attack. If they are in any way representative, it does not bode well.
The answer is simple, you dont have the blasphemy law, dont compromise with the demands for one, then most people get on with life as normal but sadly there are occasional but ongoing terrorist attacks. We have lived with them before and can cope with them in the future too.
Why deny following far right twitters so vehemently all evening and then post Brittany Sellner, partner of Austrian far right leader and more importantly a promoter of the murderer of 51 people in NZ?
So a woman related to a man who may have links with whatever the feck who simply retweets a reliable Austrian news source is thereby falsified, and you can go back to hiding. Well done.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
Agreed. It was @isam who mentioned civil war. And of course there has been worse terrorism for decades in some parts. But there is a very fundamental challenge here Because you cannot have a compromise with people who want to impose an Islamic blasphemy law. You either have one or you don’t. This is not about people demanding freedoms for themselves which are being denied by an oppressive state. But about people wanting to limit other peoples’ freedoms on the basis of a religious diktat others do not share - and seeking to use violence to achieve their ends.
There can - and should be - only one winner in such a battle and it cannot be those who seek to limit freedom. I hope we can get there without more trouble, I really do.
But check out the comments under today’s Times article on the French terror attack. If they are in any way representative, it does not bode well.
The answer is simple, you dont have the blasphemy law, dont compromise with the demands for one, then most people get on with life as normal but sadly there are occasional but ongoing terrorist attacks. We have lived with them before and can cope with them in the future too.
Why deny following far right twitters so vehemently all evening and then post Brittany Sellner, partner of Austrian far right leader and more importantly a promoter of the murderer of 51 people in NZ?
So a woman related to a man who may have links with whatever the feck who simply retweets a reliable Austrian news source is thereby falsified, and you can go back to hiding. Well done.
She promoted the guy who killed 51 people herself, nothing to do with her partner, who also happens to be a far right leader.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
Agreed. It was @isam who mentioned civil war. And of course there has been worse terrorism for decades in some parts. But there is a very fundamental challenge here Because you cannot have a compromise with people who want to impose an Islamic blasphemy law. You either have one or you don’t. This is not about people demanding freedoms for themselves which are being denied by an oppressive state. But about people wanting to limit other peoples’ freedoms on the basis of a religious diktat others do not share - and seeking to use violence to achieve their ends.
There can - and should be - only one winner in such a battle and it cannot be those who seek to limit freedom. I hope we can get there without more trouble, I really do.
But check out the comments under today’s Times article on the French terror attack. If they are in any way representative, it does not bode well.
The answer is simple, you dont have the blasphemy law, dont compromise with the demands for one, then most people get on with life as normal but sadly there are occasional but ongoing terrorist attacks. We have lived with them before and can cope with them in the future too.
Why deny following far right twitters so vehemently all evening and then post Brittany Sellner, partner of Austrian far right leader and more importantly a promoter of the murderer of 51 people in NZ?
So a woman related to a man who may have links with whatever the feck who simply retweets a reliable Austrian news source is thereby falsified, and you can go back to hiding. Well done.
She promoted the guy who killed 51 people herself, nothing to do with her partner, who also happens to be a far right leader.
I have no idea who she is. The point is she cited a reliable news source, and, as far as my schoolgirl German allows, did so truthfully.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Dont really know how it goes from a few terrorist incidents to civil war. It absolutely needs to be confronted and challenged, but hyperbole doesnt help matters.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
Agreed. It was @isam who mentioned civil war. And of course there has been worse terrorism for decades in some parts. But there is a very fundamental challenge here Because you cannot have a compromise with people who want to impose an Islamic blasphemy law. You either have one or you don’t. This is not about people demanding freedoms for themselves which are being denied by an oppressive state. But about people wanting to limit other peoples’ freedoms on the basis of a religious diktat others do not share - and seeking to use violence to achieve their ends.
There can - and should be - only one winner in such a battle and it cannot be those who seek to limit freedom. I hope we can get there without more trouble, I really do.
But check out the comments under today’s Times article on the French terror attack. If they are in any way representative, it does not bode well.
The answer is simple, you dont have the blasphemy law, dont compromise with the demands for one, then most people get on with life as normal but sadly there are occasional but ongoing terrorist attacks. We have lived with them before and can cope with them in the future too.
Getting a bit heated. We're headed for lockdown. Hopefully everyone has spent time preparing their mind for what is to come. Peace and blessings to you all.
In normal times this would be a serious problem for Labour, but in the Covid world we now live in it's not going to really matter.
Except Labour favourability ratings have collapsed 10 points or more, in barely a week. People HAVE noticed.
Short-term pain for long-term gain. Better than the reverse!
I agree. I think Starmer did a smart, strategic move, accepting short term tactical pain.
The pain is quite noticeable, however.
Ditto his 2 week circuit breaker. It was never enough. But now even longer has become inevitable. Purely because he called for it. We are governed by cretins. The one with a braincell is King.
In normal times this would be a serious problem for Labour, but in the Covid world we now live in it's not going to really matter.
Except Labour favourability ratings have collapsed 10 points or more, in barely a week. People HAVE noticed.
Short-term pain for long-term gain. Better than the reverse!
I agree. I think Starmer did a smart, strategic move, accepting short term tactical pain.
The pain is quite noticeable, however.
Ditto his 2 week circuit breaker. It was never enough. But now even longer has become inevitable. Purely because he called for it. We are governed by cretins. The one with a braincell is King.
It’s not because Starmer called for it.
It’s because the virus is out of control across Europe, the Americas, and elsewhere.
Germany is now in lockdown. France is in lockdown. Spain. Italy, Belgium, Holland, Ireland, Czechia follow. Israel. Peru. South Africa, Canada.
The idea Keir Starmer has some serious influence here is delusional. The virus is the virus. We have no vaccine. It is too late to test and trace. The only tool left to governments is some form of lockdown. The question is how severe and how allegedly ‘regional’
In normal times this would be a serious problem for Labour, but in the Covid world we now live in it's not going to really matter.
Except Labour favourability ratings have collapsed 10 points or more, in barely a week. People HAVE noticed.
Short-term pain for long-term gain. Better than the reverse!
I agree. I think Starmer did a smart, strategic move, accepting short term tactical pain.
The pain is quite noticeable, however.
Ditto his 2 week circuit breaker. It was never enough. But now even longer has become inevitable. Purely because he called for it. We are governed by cretins. The one with a braincell is King.
It’s not because Starmer called for it.
It’s because the virus is out of control across Europe, the Americas, and elsewhere.
Germany is now in lockdown. France is in lockdown. Spain. Italy, Belgium, Holland, Ireland, Czechia follow. Israel. Peru. South Africa, Canada.
The idea Keir Starmer has some serious influence here is delusional. The virus is the virus. We have no vaccine. It is too late to test and trace. The only tool left to governments is some form of lockdown. The question is how severe and how allegedly ‘regional’
Yes but. Someone saw that 2 weeks ago. Clue. It wasn't Boris. Probably cos he was fucking or holidaying or summat. Or perhaps because he is profoundly unsuited to be PM. Or summat.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because the government has already committed to keeping them open come what may, even though the evidence now says we should close them first.
.
What evidence? The scientific picture is very confused (not unusual for a new disease). I have not seen any clear-cut evidence.
Ceredigion has two universities within its boundaries (Aberystwyth, Lampeter) & one of the lowest COVID rates in the UK. So, it is easy to find counter-examples.
There were quite a few cases early doors at Aberystwyth. Gone quiet there now. Are cases being reported where students actually live?
They are reported at the address with which they are registered with a GP. Rates of registering with a GP at your university address vs just staying with your home GP vary considerably by university (and, to some extent, gender).
Out of sheer curiosity, what happens if the system encounters someone who doesn't have a GP?
I say out of curiosity - I don't think I'm registered with a GP anywhere - I was a fairly small kid last time I had cause to go and see a shrink. I had to have a shard of metal picked out of my eye at A&E some time ago, and my lack of a GP caused a certain amount of administrative difficulty, but they seemed to be able to work round it.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because the government has already committed to keeping them open come what may, even though the evidence now says we should close them first.
.
What evidence? The scientific picture is very confused (not unusual for a new disease). I have not seen any clear-cut evidence.
Ceredigion has two universities within its boundaries (Aberystwyth, Lampeter) & one of the lowest COVID rates in the UK. So, it is easy to find counter-examples.
There were quite a few cases early doors at Aberystwyth. Gone quiet there now. Are cases being reported where students actually live?
They are reported at the address with which they are registered with a GP. Rates of registering with a GP at your university address vs just staying with your home GP vary considerably by university (and, to some extent, gender).
Out of sheer curiosity, what happens if the system encounters someone who doesn't have a GP?
I say out of curiosity - I don't think I'm registered with a GP anywhere - I was a fairly small kid last time I had cause to go and see a shrink. I had to have a shard of metal picked out of my eye at A&E some time ago, and my lack of a GP caused a certain amount of administrative difficulty, but they seemed to be able to work round it.
You are not alone - you can't be. For one thing, must be plenty every year who have to change their GP due to (their previous quack's) sickness, death, insanity, incarceration & other ways of vacating the position or the profession.
Sounds like it might be a good idea to contact the powers-that-be (perhaps your MP could help with this IF not straightforward). Not a bad idea to get a checkup AND a flu shot.
Yours truly had to change doctors, which was relatively painless once I got in touch with my clinic. Which I'd been avoiding due to COVID - but had to re-engage because my prescriptions were running out.
Was short discussion previously re: LOTO who never became PM who had major impact on their party and country.
For the Labour Party, the list is rather distinguished, albeit from 1st half of 20th century: > George Lansbury > Herbert Morrison (as acting Leader of Labour Party for brief period following Attlee's retirement) > Hugh Gaitskell\ > note that I do not included some other possibles (notably George Brown and John Smith) because they made significant contributions however the degree of their impact seems (to me) limited.
Give honorable mention to two very unique politicos from different ends of the spectrum: > James Maxton of the Independent Labour Party, which after Labour and Liberals went into Churchill's WW2 coalition attempted to claim the front bench on grounds that ILP (=3 MPs) was largest party outside HMG. > Edward Carson of the Irish Unionist Party who who resigned from Asquith's WW1 coalition, and became defacto leader of the largest opposition group in HoC.
Only other nominee I have for the Conservatives was - technically - NOT a Conservative > Joseph Chamberlain, as a Liberal Unionist, was Leader of the Opposition while James Balfour was out of parliament after JB lost his seat in general election of 1906 and before he was returned in a by-election > again, other potential candidates (Hague, IDS, Howard) strike me as men who made contributions bit too limited for inclusion as movers and shakers.
Another U-turn before a policy even gets implemented, incoming? Hot on the heels of the previous business support scheme, trashed a few days after announcement.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Me too, but I’d say it’s likely to happen.
No. People are missing that the children of immigrants don’t, in the round, retain all of the attitudes of their parents. The children of the children even less so.
The expenses scandal revealed the mild-crookedness of many MPs, COVID-19 has revealed a large number of the members of parliament to be innumerate, lacking even basic scientific knowledge, and incapable of extrapolation and planning. To put it bluntly I would guess that at least half of all MPs are essentially useless.
And 90% of the other half are positively dangerous.
I'm not even joking, we live in an ever increasingly technological and scientifically driven world, and the people who legislate for and govern us are in many cases completely out of their depth.
Dare I say it: too many Oxbridge humanities graduates.
Too many Oxford graduates full stop.
Too many people who think alike, too many people driven by doctrine, and too many people unwilling to question their own side. Now I'm not saying a parliament full of free-thinkers would work — cat herding comes to mind — but listening to MPs endlessly trotting out the tripe that their party has decided is today's "thought" is wearying.
Fundamentally the problem is our Parliamentary system, which could just about muddle through some of the great crises of the last 300 years, doesn't really have a clear idea what it is there to do any more. We've bolted more and more responsibility onto Members of Parliament over the years - they're no longer legislators or statemen/women, they're a Frankenstein's Monster of spokesperson, lobby fodder, untrained caseworker, and general community punching bag.
Almost every aspect of an MP's work life is set up to make them as unproductive, miserable and ineffective as possible. Nowadays, their work revolves around an email inbox, which fills up every day with potentially hundreds of emails on hundreds of topics (this will be casework on behalf of constituents, invitations to various events, inquiries about Government policy, complaints, frequent death threats, lobbying emails from fellow MPs, Whips etc). This is absolutely terrible for their mental health, and means that a lot of these emails get passed on to staffers, most of whom are completely untrained, underpaid and usually doing it as their first real job. It's shit for everyone involved -the MPs, who are stressed constantly, the staffers, who end up putting in stupid hours for little reward, and the people contacting their MPs, who get frustrated and don't have proper caseworker support.
And then we have the braindead idea of getting Ministers to do their Ministerial work ON TOP OF their stressful MP work, for a fraction of the pay they'd expect for a similar job in the private sector.
The reality is that most backbenchers don't need to be in Parliament as most of what they do is vote for the Government's bills, do casework (poorly) and develop ulsers, and most Ministers definitely shouldn't be in Parliament, because it makes it much harder to do what should be their main job, running the country.
I'd halve the number of MPs, double their pay, prevent MPs from serving as Government Ministers (they need to be appointed to the Lords first or something), and strip responsibility for casework from them and give it to a specialist caseworker unit operated by IPSA or Citizen's Advice. This would just be plaster on the wider institutional problems but it'd be a start.
Your solutions don’t really live up to your diagnosis. Or description of the symptoms.
Up thread someone made an excellent point about the weakness of our local government and the absurd centralisation of everything in the UK. That people look to their MPs for almost everything is a further symptom of that. I know myself, having been a principal councillor for many years, that there were far more dog mess and parking type of casework items being passed down from MPs’ offices than there ever were national politics cases I had to pass up.
It would be better if we had councillors with real responsibility and if residents started with the person who is local and they are more likely to know.
538 has 90/10, Biden just *so* close to going into the election with an adjective
EiT, so what are folks in Japan thinking about US election?
BTW, think most Americans are still unaware Japan has new Prime Minister, and certainly only one in 1,000 (not including me) at best could name him.
Not a *huge* amount of media attention and it hasn't really come up in conversation. The telly was tending to run it as "could go either way because swing states".
Getting a bit heated. We're headed for lockdown. Hopefully everyone has spent time preparing their mind for what is to come. Peace and blessings to you all.
Broken electric kettles and toilet seats if reports from Wales are any guide. The real question is where can we buy Christmas presents if non-essential shops are closed.
Heading for MOE territory but that is not to say any of the polls are wrong, still less that all of them are wrong in the same direction. Whether it is valid to combine or average these polls from states that have little in common apart from the battleground label is a question for greater minds than mine.
Heading for MOE territory but that is not to say any of the polls are wrong, still less that all of them are wrong in the same direction. Whether it is valid to combine or average these polls from states that have little in common apart from the battleground label is a question for greater minds than mine.
Getting a bit heated. We're headed for lockdown. Hopefully everyone has spent time preparing their mind for what is to come. Peace and blessings to you all.
Broken electric kettles and toilet seats if reports from Wales are any guide. The real question is where can we buy Christmas presents if non-essential shops are closed.
Online shopping, which I try to avoid as much as possible. I like to support "old-fashioned" shops that you can actually walk into.
Thousands of postal ballots have, apparently, gone missing in Pennsylvania.
I don't think the GOP realise that far from making America great again, they are a laughing stock to the world and little better than the kind of shitshow which Trump derided in Africa.
Getting a bit heated. We're headed for lockdown. Hopefully everyone has spent time preparing their mind for what is to come. Peace and blessings to you all.
Broken electric kettles and toilet seats if reports from Wales are any guide. The real question is where can we buy Christmas presents if non-essential shops are closed.
Online shopping,
I buy everything online now. I haven't been inside a physical shop for months.
Amazon take 95% of my business. I love Amazon Fresh.
Getting a bit heated. We're headed for lockdown. Hopefully everyone has spent time preparing their mind for what is to come. Peace and blessings to you all.
Broken electric kettles and toilet seats if reports from Wales are any guide. The real question is where can we buy Christmas presents if non-essential shops are closed.
Online shopping,
I buy everything online now. I haven't been inside a physical shop for months.
Amazon take 95% of my business. I love Amazon Fresh.
Online shopping is usually cheaper and more efficient, but I think most people will miss physical shops if they disappear completely. It'll be a sad day if that happens.
Getting a bit heated. We're headed for lockdown. Hopefully everyone has spent time preparing their mind for what is to come. Peace and blessings to you all.
Broken electric kettles and toilet seats if reports from Wales are any guide. The real question is where can we buy Christmas presents if non-essential shops are closed.
Online shopping,
I buy everything online now. I haven't been inside a physical shop for months.
Amazon take 95% of my business. I love Amazon Fresh.
Online shopping is usually cheaper and more efficient, but I think most people will miss physical shops if they disappear completely. It'll be a sad day if that happens.
I do agree but I began to find supermarket shopping very stressful. The absence of face masks in enclosed spaces was awful.
Thousands of postal ballots have, apparently, gone missing in Pennsylvania.
I don't think the GOP realise that far from making America great again, they are a laughing stock to the world and little better than the kind of shitshow which Trump derided in Africa.
Why all the focus on saving Christmas, it’s 25/12 and does not need twenty five relatives around in a house. If anything focus should be on including singles where possible. Any relaxing of the rules will only need to be paid for four weeks latter. People need to get used to it, use online shopping for as much as possible and accept that this year is different. The Telly will be shit but then it always is, endless re runs of Outbreak?
It is worth noting, though, that a top battlegrounds poll from 2016 would have had: Colorado and Nevada (which both turned out to be fairly comfortable holds) but no Wisconsin or Michigan. Simply what people think are the battlegrounds and what the actual battlegrounds are or not the same.
Personally, I think we get waaaay too carried away with state polls.
Will Biden end up 4% or more ahead of Trump? If so, he's President. If it's 3-4% then it's likely but far from certain. If it's 2-3% then, it's 50/50, and if it's less than 2% then Trump is favourite.
Getting a bit heated. We're headed for lockdown. Hopefully everyone has spent time preparing their mind for what is to come. Peace and blessings to you all.
Broken electric kettles and toilet seats if reports from Wales are any guide. The real question is where can we buy Christmas presents if non-essential shops are closed.
Online shopping,
I buy everything online now. I haven't been inside a physical shop for months.
Amazon take 95% of my business. I love Amazon Fresh.
I’ve been fully locked into the internet for a decade for shopping but I do find it odd to hear there are people that haven’t been in a shop at all since covid. Each to their own.
If I could make one suggestion rather than defaulting to Amazon every time. Try Etsy. Small independent craftspeople producing bespoke and high quality products, at generally very affordable rates. Furniture makers, blacksmiths, textiles, jewellery, lighting, art, odds and sods you name it.
Comments
Personally, I don't see this happening. I suspect the Treasury will end up as grown ups and call a halt to such nonsense.
A reminder that we have lived with much higher levels of terrorism in Western Europe, we just didnt have social media and 24hr international news to make it feel so high.
https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism#is-terrorism-increasing
Not sure that this makes your point, though, Roy. Albania was essentially a closed country until relatively recently, and all of B&H, Kosovo and the Turks in Cyprus were pretty much enclaves within Christian countries. European Turkey is it's own story.
But the idea that there are simple solutions which can be sorted in a fortnight, as the Owen Jones tweet implies, is bollox.
It's been kind of "secularised" in this country, with Holi-themed music festivals and the like.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415732/Undergraduate_students_-_your_rights_under_consumer_law.pdf
I presume he was less than impressed with the stuff Snowdon revealed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54754016
There can - and should be - only one winner in such a battle and it cannot be those who seek to limit freedom. I hope we can get there without more trouble, I really do.
But check out the comments under today’s Times article on the French terror attack. If they are in any way representative, it does not bode well.
These are all the sorts of things that can really make a difference to the passage of the virus.
To be honest I'm more focused on trying to do as well as possible and forge a future career out of the ashes of this shitshow than trying to start a fight with the university.
There are definitely countries who have faired well, but as far as I can think, South Korea is the only one that has shown an ability when cases started to rise rapidly to use track and trace to crush it (and have done so twice). Other countries just never got into those situations, normally via locking down super hard. Everybody else that has tried this we can have some restrictions when cases rise and track and trace the way out have failed.
So, this includes any course that involves practical work (e.g. almost all the sciences). The practicals will not have been possible because of COVID restrictions, so students did not receive the training they might have legitimately expected.
And once the principle of a (partial) rebate for some courses has been established, then I am sure it will be easier to just apply it to all courses.
Well at least Boris and Carrie seem to be back on, so happy days.
But if these reports are right I may have to flee home again.
If the current situation is many times worse than SAGE's worst case scenario then they effectively didn't predict the possibility of a second wave in autumn.
Which makes them so complacently incompetent that their only honourable course of action is to resign and become politicians.
Almost every aspect of an MP's work life is set up to make them as unproductive, miserable and ineffective as possible. Nowadays, their work revolves around an email inbox, which fills up every day with potentially hundreds of emails on hundreds of topics (this will be casework on behalf of constituents, invitations to various events, inquiries about Government policy, complaints, frequent death threats, lobbying emails from fellow MPs, Whips etc). This is absolutely terrible for their mental health, and means that a lot of these emails get passed on to staffers, most of whom are completely untrained, underpaid and usually doing it as their first real job. It's shit for everyone involved -the MPs, who are stressed constantly, the staffers, who end up putting in stupid hours for little reward, and the people contacting their MPs, who get frustrated and don't have proper caseworker support.
And then we have the braindead idea of getting Ministers to do their Ministerial work ON TOP OF their stressful MP work, for a fraction of the pay they'd expect for a similar job in the private sector.
The reality is that most backbenchers don't need to be in Parliament as most of what they do is vote for the Government's bills, do casework (poorly) and develop ulsers, and most Ministers definitely shouldn't be in Parliament, because it makes it much harder to do what should be their main job, running the country.
I'd halve the number of MPs, double their pay, prevent MPs from serving as Government Ministers (they need to be appointed to the Lords first or something), and strip responsibility for casework from them and give it to a specialist caseworker unit operated by IPSA or Citizen's Advice. This would just be plaster on the wider institutional problems but it'd be a start.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/government-says-no-evidence-wearing-21810110
https://twitter.com/brittpettibone/status/1322239997542604801?s=21
Later peeps!
https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1322314490390695937?s=20
Bexar, Harris, and Travis are now trending higher than the state average.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/26/austrian-far-right-leader-searched-on-suspicion-of-forming-terrorist-group-with-christchurch-shooter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng7nN-gPx-I
https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/1322337433283928065
The pain is quite noticeable, however.
Peace and blessings to you all.
https://twitter.com/jamesheartfield/status/1322336774773968897?s=21
Purely because he called for it.
We are governed by cretins. The one with a braincell is King.
It’s because the virus is out of control across Europe, the Americas, and elsewhere.
Germany is now in lockdown. France is in lockdown. Spain. Italy, Belgium, Holland, Ireland, Czechia follow. Israel. Peru. South Africa, Canada.
The idea Keir Starmer has some serious influence here is delusional. The virus is the virus. We have no vaccine. It is too late to test and trace. The only tool left to governments is some form of lockdown. The question is how severe and how allegedly ‘regional’
Someone saw that 2 weeks ago.
Clue. It wasn't Boris.
Probably cos he was fucking or holidaying or summat.
Or perhaps because he is profoundly unsuited to be PM. Or summat.
I say out of curiosity - I don't think I'm registered with a GP anywhere - I was a fairly small kid last time I had cause to go and see a shrink. I had to have a shard of metal picked out of my eye at A&E some time ago, and my lack of a GP caused a certain amount of administrative difficulty, but they seemed to be able to work round it.
https://twitter.com/PauIRob/status/1298018231853166599
Sounds like it might be a good idea to contact the powers-that-be (perhaps your MP could help with this IF not straightforward). Not a bad idea to get a checkup AND a flu shot.
Yours truly had to change doctors, which was relatively painless once I got in touch with my clinic. Which I'd been avoiding due to COVID - but had to re-engage because my prescriptions were running out.
Good luck & good health!
https://twitter.com/aaronbastani/status/1322347142011326465?s=21
The brilliant thing is, the tweeter believes this will make us warm to Corbyn
For the Labour Party, the list is rather distinguished, albeit from 1st half of 20th century:
> George Lansbury
> Herbert Morrison (as acting Leader of Labour Party for brief period following Attlee's retirement)
> Hugh Gaitskell\
> note that I do not included some other possibles (notably George Brown and John Smith) because they made significant contributions however the degree of their impact seems (to me) limited.
Give honorable mention to two very unique politicos from different ends of the spectrum:
> James Maxton of the Independent Labour Party, which after Labour and Liberals went into Churchill's WW2 coalition attempted to claim the front bench on grounds that ILP (=3 MPs) was largest party outside HMG.
> Edward Carson of the Irish Unionist Party who who resigned from Asquith's WW1 coalition, and became defacto leader of the largest opposition group in HoC.
Only other nominee I have for the Conservatives was - technically - NOT a Conservative
> Joseph Chamberlain, as a Liberal Unionist, was Leader of the Opposition while James Balfour was out of parliament after JB lost his seat in general election of 1906 and before he was returned in a by-election
> again, other potential candidates (Hague, IDS, Howard) strike me as men who made contributions bit too limited for inclusion as movers and shakers.
BTW, think most Americans are still unaware Japan has new Prime Minister, and certainly only one in 1,000 (not including me) at best could name him.
Up thread someone made an excellent point about the weakness of our local government and the absurd centralisation of everything in the UK. That people look to their MPs for almost everything is a further symptom of that. I know myself, having been a principal councillor for many years, that there were far more dog mess and parking type of casework items being passed down from MPs’ offices than there ever were national politics cases I had to pass up.
It would be better if we had councillors with real responsibility and if residents started with the person who is local and they are more likely to know.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states/
I don't think the GOP realise that far from making America great again, they are a laughing stock to the world and little better than the kind of shitshow which Trump derided in Africa.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/30/politics/pennsylvania-butler-county-ballots/index.html
Amazon take 95% of my business. I love Amazon Fresh.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/25/politics/biden-leads-trump-polling/index.html
Funny, but a bit of an abuse of a charity for political purposes
Personally, I think we get waaaay too carried away with state polls.
Will Biden end up 4% or more ahead of Trump? If so, he's President. If it's 3-4% then it's likely but far from certain. If it's 2-3% then, it's 50/50, and if it's less than 2% then Trump is favourite.
That Fox poll was pretty accurate on the PV last time. Must have cheered up the Donald.
If I could make one suggestion rather than defaulting to Amazon every time. Try Etsy. Small independent craftspeople producing bespoke and high quality products, at generally very affordable rates. Furniture makers, blacksmiths, textiles, jewellery, lighting, art, odds and sods you name it.