Mr. Urquhart, psychological differences according to sex seems rather, er, obvious.
Men have larger brains than women. But the corpus callosum, the 'highway' connecting the hemispheres, is the same size, meaning the two hemispheres are effectively better connected in women.
On the behavioural front: women talk more than men. About twice as much. Men are more independent, and less likely to ask for help.
It's bizarre that some people think the entirety of human behaviour is learned. That's true for rare instances (first language) but the vast majority of human behaviour is a mix of innate instinct/genetic makeup and the social environment one grows up in.
Mr. Urquhart, psychological differences according to sex seems rather, er, obvious.
Men have larger brains than women. But the corpus callosum, the 'highway' connecting the hemispheres, is the same size, meaning the two hemispheres are effectively better connected in women.
On the behavioural front: women talk more than men. About twice as much. Men are more independent, and less likely to ask for help.
It's bizarre that some people think the entirety of human behaviour is learned. That's true for rare instances (first language) but the vast majority of human behaviour is a mix of innate instinct/genetic makeup and the social environment one grows up in.
How dare you state the obvious. Off with his head!
Mr. Stocky, well, in occupational terms I guess that happens to some teachers.
And that's before we get onto the difference in musculature (essentially, men have twice the muscle of women due to differing proportions of fat/muscle coupled with slightly larger average size).
But some people have such closed minds that when their ideology conflicts with reality they sooner discard reality than their beliefs. Behold, the joy of fanaticism.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Go back to the start of this subthread and we are at Buckingham Palace. We could as easily be in Downing Street or the White House. When examining cause and effect, let's not confuse so-called morality with good old-fashioned poverty.
Mr. Stocky, well, in occupational terms I guess that happens to some teachers.
And that's before we get onto the difference in musculature (essentially, men have twice the muscle of women due to differing proportions of fat/muscle coupled with slightly larger average size).
But some people have such closed minds that when their ideology conflicts with reality they sooner discard reality than their beliefs. Behold, the joy of fanaticism.
Good post, I`m with you. (Though Maureen up the road could beat me in a fight.)
You can't be in a broad church with a leadership cult. The people throwing these motions around suffer from foaming-dog-fever, how is the leadership supposed to compromise with them?
Momentum. A party within a party. Illegal under the rules. Excommunicate the lot of them. Suffer the electoral pain of having 4 separate Corbynite socialist unity candidates running against you in red wall seats, each picking up 30 votes each. Done.
Why should political punters have any useful insight into the state of play of Brexit negotiations? They are as in the dark as the rest of us.
Well we are probably the last people still caring or reading anything about it. And if you look at the number of comments that are on topic in this thread it’s evident that even our interest is waning.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Naah, you are giving him a very easy ride. He wants women but not men to have to demonstrate their virginity, and he likes going out of his way to call the children of unmarried couples, bastards. I genuinely don't see much difference between that, and calling black people all those things it is wrong to call black people.
"Andrew Gwynne, the former Labour frontbencher who represents Denton and Reddish in Greater Manchester, said he was minded not to support the new regime. “I will never understand the logic of a tiering system that says it’s OK for many thousands to cram into a busy shopping centre in the run-up to Christmas, but small numbers from the same household are unable to sit responsibly at a table for a meal and a drink in a bar or restaurant.”"
"Andrew Gwynne, the former Labour frontbencher who represents Denton and Reddish in Greater Manchester, said he was minded not to support the new regime. “I will never understand the logic of a tiering system that says it’s OK for many thousands to cram into a busy shopping centre in the run-up to Christmas, but small numbers from the same household are unable to sit responsibly at a table for a meal and a drink in a bar or restaurant.”"
^this
Even though I fully understand why shops need to be allowed to open - once you allow shops to open in the run up to Christmas you may as well let pubs and restaurants do so until Christmas as well it's not going to make any difference.
Personally I'm taking the Wednesday after next off to do my last bits of shopping - I need to get a few odds and ends and the weekends are going to be a mare.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Go back to the start of this subthread and we are at Buckingham Palace. We could as easily be in Downing Street or the White House. When examining cause and effect, let's not confuse so-called morality with good old-fashioned poverty.
Certainly financial stresses contribute to family breakdown, few could deny that.
I think that the breakdown of his parents marriage contributed significantly to Prince Harrys mental health issues. These things affect all income levels.
"Good old fashioned poverty" is heavily reinforced by cycles of family breakdown and single parenting. Of course some succeed despite such backgrounds, but the obstacles that they have to clear ar harder and higher. The welfare state does offset some, but not all of this disadvantage. Things are worse in the USA for example.
I presumed that photo was a link to an article, but it isn't, its just a photo of Starmer. Weird.
Not at all. Without it she could, if she chose, later claim to simply not be happy with various practices of the party without directly being critical of the leader (albeit it would be obvious), instead she is upfront who she is blaming for what is happening.
Abbot and co must secretly be very happy to be back in their comfort zone, attacking the leader of the Labour party. It's awful finding yourself in a position of responsibility you are not suitable for but are too proud to step back from, the dreams of the membership on your shoulders and potentially actual voters to end up responsible for.
Much better to engage in internecine factional bickering where the enemy is beside you.
Which is perhaps why SKS's removal of the whip from JC was not such a good idea. The various factions in any party, and under FPTP there will inevitably be factions in "broad church" parties, need to find ways to work with each other.
I don’t really see why any respectable party, broad church or not, should have to learn to work with an anti-Semitic faction. There are limits and that should be one of them.
Oxford/AstraZeneca say full results will be available soon, perhaps early next week; also, the data only went up to the 3rd November, and more has come in since which may make things clearer.
Lockdown 1 - March to July Lockdown 2 - the various restrictions since September, including this last month Lockdown 3 - starting next week.
For me, it just feels like one lockdown which has gone on since March: house, hills and occasionally Tesco. Oh and Boots for my flu injection and the hospital for more serious stuff. Christ! No wonder I’m depressed.
Why should political punters have any useful insight into the state of play of Brexit negotiations? They are as in the dark as the rest of us.
Well we are probably the last people still caring or reading anything about it. And if you look at the number of comments that are on topic in this thread it’s evident that even our interest is waning.
I think anyone who works in international supply chains might have a tiny interest in the matter!
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
Lockdown 1 - March to July Lockdown 2 - the various restrictions since September, including this last month Lockdown 3 - starting next week.
For me, it just feels like one lockdown which has gone on since March: house, hills and occasionally Tesco. Oh and Boots for my flu injection and the hospital for more serious stuff. Christ! No wonder I’m depressed.
Was sorting through photos yesterday. There was a few months where the weather was decent and mainly because I was partially furloughed I was able do sunny walks with the kids or go on mega bike rides. Other than that its just been monotony - although I haven't been stuck in the Greater Manchester lockdown I have been impacted by it as haven't seen the olds since February.
I've been posting that its going to be a grim winter and it is - and we have months more of this to come. As Andrew Gwynne surmised above we're facing down more hypocritical stupidity with the rules. Its a manageable risk to let people go into Teesside shopping centres en masse to buy crap from China, but its far too dangerous for a few of them to have a well managed meal in a restaurant. Bollocks it is.
Manchester United are being held to RANSOM for millions of pounds by cyberhackers who targeted club computer systems and are demanding cash not to release sensitive data
Cronyism, Boris: some words naturally go together. Do we need to care about this particular instance? It is more about the party than the murky pandemic supply contracts which involve public funds for public services.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I would agree that virginity tests are appalling and intrusive. Apart from being unreliable and unscientific, these things should be taken on trust.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
This is why so many people are up in arms that they went into Lockdown 2.0 in Tier 1 and come out in Tier 2.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
Not to mention keeping open a few businesses which might otherwise go under.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
This is why so many people are up in arms that they went into Lockdown 2.0 in Tier 1 and come out in Tier 2.
It certainly doesn't say much for the assessements behind the original tier system (or the "benefits" of lockdown") if 4 weeks of lockdown have made things worse.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
Surely the idea that a woman ought to be a virgin when first climbing into the marital bed is at best ultra-niche these days. Nevertheless, I wonder how many men, even self-proclaimed progressive ones, would feel queasy to learn that their new wives had had, say, thirty more sexual partners than them?
4% of men and 5% of women say they would wait until marriage to have sex, so about the same as now back the LDs, at the other extreme 28% of men say you they would have sex after a first date but only 7% of women agree
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
Are you suggesting that the EU should override national sovereignty?
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
Are you suggesting that the EU should override national sovereignty?
I am suggesting that they should stand up for their principles. Member States then have to choose what is the more important to them and it is possible that the likes of Orban will not be able to bring his people with him. But they won't.
Manchester United are being held to RANSOM for millions of pounds by cyberhackers who targeted club computer systems and are demanding cash not to release sensitive data
First we shall lull the enemy into a false sense of complacency...
What would sensitive data be? Salaries, even transfer targets would be known or easily guessed. The club has denied fan data is at risk. It sounds like a good test of their backup policies: can they rebuild to a safe version?
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
Surely the idea that a woman ought to be a virgin when first climbing into the marital bed is at best ultra-niche these days. Nevertheless, I wonder how many men, even self-proclaimed progressive ones, would feel queasy to learn that their new wives had had, say, thirty more sexual partners than them?
4% of men and 5% of women say they would wait until marriage to have sex, so about the same as now back the LDs, at the other extreme 28% of men say you they would have sex after a first date but only 7% of women agree
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
This is why so many people are up in arms that they went into Lockdown 2.0 in Tier 1 and come out in Tier 2.
It certainly doesn't say much for the assessements behind the original tier system (or the "benefits" of lockdown") if 4 weeks of lockdown have made things worse.
Yep. Looks a total mess to me. With the cherry on the cake being the 'save xmas' policy.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
The story is that SKS was pressured into removing the whip from JC by Margaret Hodge threatening to walk out, but it remains unfortunate.
The membership is pretty evenly divided on the issue, but most feel that it's not the moment to make a big fuss - they hope Keir and Jeremy can sort it out. As someone who's known and liked Jeremy for 50 years I'm biased, but I don't think either of them are given to oh-well-let's say-whatever compromises, unfortunately.
Ann Black in last night's video discussion with my CLP (+ some others) raised an interesting point - she suggested that lockdown was both encouraging more people to take part in events as they don't need to go somewhere (certainly true in my CLP) but also sharpening disagreements, because they weren't being softened by routine face-to-face "can you pass the biscuits?" interactions. The NEC sits in alphabetical order for some bizarre reason, so in face-to-face sessions you don't particularly sit with your mates.
A passing comment that she added is that Keir wryly notes that he's been leader for 8 months but has yet to have a meeting in person with any group of people at all.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
I am largely of the opinion that one's private life, should indeed be private. I am uncomfortable moralising over other people's lifestyles. However, I am happy to make an exception. I would prefer a Prime Minister whose private life didn't confirm the behaviour of a feral teenager from a sink estate.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
This is why so many people are up in arms that they went into Lockdown 2.0 in Tier 1 and come out in Tier 2.
It certainly doesn't say much for the assessements behind the original tier system (or the "benefits" of lockdown") if 4 weeks of lockdown have made things worse.
Though very likely would have been worse still without. There are plenty of examples across the Atlantic to illustrate.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
Not to mention keeping open a few businesses which might otherwise go under.
The rules make no sense at all.
That’s why hospitality needs a targeted support package for all venues in Tiers 2 and 3.
The government’s approach is like that of a rescuer who throws a drowning man in a lake a rope to support him then takes the rope away as soon as the man gets nearer to the shore.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
Negotiate a Brexit deal with them?
They tried that and the unscrupulous lot reneged on it before it even began!
Cronyism, Boris: some words naturally go together. Do we need to care about this particular instance? It is more about the party than the murky pandemic supply contracts which involve public funds for public services.
Cronyism OK until my friends aren't friends of the right people?
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I would agree that virginity tests are appalling and intrusive. Apart from being unreliable and unscientific, these things should be taken on trust.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
The importance of sex is vastly overplayed and exaggerated by our biased third class media. It’s a pleasant addition to a stable relationship, can’t see how it is an end in itself. People are told they are bored and need excitement in their lives, try something that doesn’t break up families and produces unwanted kids.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
By standing up for their principles and saying up with this we will not put.
By far the best thing the EU has done is to provide a home and stability for the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe. It played a key role in helping those former dictatorships establish democracies and the rule of law using good examples, loads of cash and clear incentives. Thatcher supported the eastward expansion of the EU for these (and other probably more selfish) reasons. It would be tragic if the current generation of mealy mouthed leaders let that good work be undermined. This is not an opportunity for fudge; it is a time to be clear that these countries can choose to be a part of western democracy or they can go down the same route as Russia under Putin.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
Of course you don't have data for the last assertion, but "zero correlation" is about as likely as perfect correlation. I'm surprised - you don't normally shoot from the hip (I think).
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
Negotiate a Brexit deal with them?
They tried that and the unscrupulous lot reneged on it before it even began!
Yes, that is the problem of negotiating with people who don't follow the rule of Law. I thought Ursula's comments the other day quite revealing. It seems she does not trust Britain's word and wants robust enforcement mechanisms on any deal.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
By standing up for their principles and saying up with this we will not put.
By far the best thing the EU has done is to provide a home and stability for the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe. It played a key role in helping those former dictatorships establish democracies and the rule of law using good examples, loads of cash and clear incentives. Thatcher supported the eastward expansion of the EU for these (and other probably more selfish) reasons. It would be tragic if the current generation of mealy mouthed leaders let that good work be undermined. This is not an opportunity for fudge; it is a time to be clear that these countries can choose to be a part of western democracy or they can go down the same route as Russia under Putin.
I was obviously asking about the UK not an Eastern European country. Perhaps the lessons of the last century or two might have taught our country that people in glass houses should be more circumspect when they throw stones around. We should engage internationally with others with less demands and instructions and more persuasion. We are not experts on everywhere in the world because we read a couple of books or stories online.
Manchester United are being held to RANSOM for millions of pounds by cyberhackers who targeted club computer systems and are demanding cash not to release sensitive data
First we shall lull the enemy into a false sense of complacency...
What would sensitive data be? Salaries, even transfer targets would be known or easily guessed. The club has denied fan data is at risk. It sounds like a good test of their backup policies: can they rebuild to a safe version?
Let's hope they actually tested their backups from time to time. A backup isn't complete until you've verified that you can restore from it!
In most of these cases of encryption attacks, people are paying the ransoms because it's cheaper than re-installing all the servers from scratch. I suspect that the hackers in this case have worked out who they're attacking, and are setting the ransom accordingly.
By January, there will be vacancies for a Director of IT and a Head of Information Security.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
This is why so many people are up in arms that they went into Lockdown 2.0 in Tier 1 and come out in Tier 2.
It certainly doesn't say much for the assessements behind the original tier system (or the "benefits" of lockdown") if 4 weeks of lockdown have made things worse.
All it means is that the original tiers were too low. Which is why they panicked into a national lockdown when things got out of hand. Putting areas into higher tiers more promptly and with consistent rules would have been better at bringing people along with the changes. See also Scotland.
If tier 1 was too low for an area before the lockdown though, it's still going to be too low now, because the growth in cases would simply resume, even if it's from a somewhat lower level thanks to the lockdown.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
Are you suggesting that the EU should override national sovereignty?
I am suggesting that they should stand up for their principles. Member States then have to choose what is the more important to them and it is possible that the likes of Orban will not be able to bring his people with him. But they won't.
That was why I thought the article an interesting one - and the development of an 'enhanced cooperation mechanism' a secondary issue. 'Expulsion' isn't a realistic proposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union Sanctions might have been more likely had we still been a member.
It might even have provided the impetus for a multi tier Europe, which could have suited our half in/half out aspirations.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
Surely the idea that a woman ought to be a virgin when first climbing into the marital bed is at best ultra-niche these days. Nevertheless, I wonder how many men, even self-proclaimed progressive ones, would feel queasy to learn that their new wives had had, say, thirty more sexual partners than them?
4% of men and 5% of women say they would wait until marriage to have sex, so about the same as now back the LDs, at the other extreme 28% of men say you they would have sex after a first date but only 7% of women agree
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
Negotiate a Brexit deal with them?
They tried that and the unscrupulous lot reneged on it before it even began!
Yes, that is the problem of negotiating with people who don't follow the rule of Law. I thought Ursula's comments the other day quite revealing. It seems she does not trust Britain's word and wants robust enforcement mechanisms on any deal.
It's amazing how many in the Government give the impression of failing to make the connection between how many of their arguments in the Brexit negotiations (almost from the start) have been along the lines of "we don't need this written down because it is inconceivable that the UK would go down the route that the EU are afraid of", and their willingness to renege on the Withdrawal agreement.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
Negotiate a Brexit deal with them?
They tried that and the unscrupulous lot reneged on it before it even began!
Yes, that is the problem of negotiating with people who don't follow the rule of Law. I thought Ursula's comments the other day quite revealing. It seems she does not trust Britain's word and wants robust enforcement mechanisms on any deal.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I would agree that virginity tests are appalling and intrusive. Apart from being unreliable and unscientific, these things should be taken on trust.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
Again, marital fidelity and conventional sexual morality (ie pre-60s), are not the same thing at all.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
Negotiate a Brexit deal with them?
They tried that and the unscrupulous lot reneged on it before it even began!
Yes, that is the problem of negotiating with people who don't follow the rule of Law. I thought Ursula's comments the other day quite revealing. It seems she does not trust Britain's word and wants robust enforcement mechanisms on any deal.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
Negotiate a Brexit deal with them?
They tried that and the unscrupulous lot reneged on it before it even began!
Yes, that is the problem of negotiating with people who don't follow the rule of Law. I thought Ursula's comments the other day quite revealing. It seems she does not trust Britain's word and wants robust enforcement mechanisms on any deal.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
This is why so many people are up in arms that they went into Lockdown 2.0 in Tier 1 and come out in Tier 2.
People should be up in arms that they were in Tier 1 when it was ineffective. More illness and death than if they'd been in Tier 2 in the first place.
Manchester United are being held to RANSOM for millions of pounds by cyberhackers who targeted club computer systems and are demanding cash not to release sensitive data
First we shall lull the enemy into a false sense of complacency...
What would sensitive data be? Salaries, even transfer targets would be known or easily guessed. The club has denied fan data is at risk. It sounds like a good test of their backup policies: can they rebuild to a safe version?
Let's hope they actually tested their backups from time to time. A backup isn't complete until you've verified that you can restore from it!
In most of these cases of encryption attacks, people are paying the ransoms because it's cheaper than re-installing all the servers from scratch. I suspect that the hackers in this case have worked out who they're attacking, and are setting the ransom accordingly.
By January, there will be vacancies for a Director of IT and a Head of Information Security.
Backups aren't really in point, are they? The story isn't that the hackers have corrupted or encrypted the data, just that they have a copy of it.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
This is why so many people are up in arms that they went into Lockdown 2.0 in Tier 1 and come out in Tier 2.
It certainly doesn't say much for the assessements behind the original tier system (or the "benefits" of lockdown") if 4 weeks of lockdown have made things worse.
Yep. Looks a total mess to me. With the cherry on the cake being the 'save xmas' policy.
This is a bit broken record, but hey- the record is broken...
Because Boris is Boris, the controls have always been a bit too little, a bit too late. That was true for the Great Lockdown, but also for Tiers 1.0. And people said it at the time. Now there are those who say that shows an admirable respect for freedom, or respectable caution about the costs, or insight into people's patience. However.
If the controls are too hard or too early, you get to relax them sooner. Better for livelihoods as well as lives. The government also looks in control. The BoJo approach- tightening until you get control- means you take longer to get control, and you get the confidence-sapping "what was the point of the (insufficient) sacrifice?" vibe.
Bottom line is that limiting social interaction is a tool that works. Expensively, but it works. You can't blame the tool for the fact that BoJo is an incompetent workman.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
This is why so many people are up in arms that they went into Lockdown 2.0 in Tier 1 and come out in Tier 2.
It certainly doesn't say much for the assessements behind the original tier system (or the "benefits" of lockdown") if 4 weeks of lockdown have made things worse.
All it means is that the original tiers were too low. Which is why they panicked into a national lockdown when things got out of hand. Putting areas into higher tiers more promptly and with consistent rules would have been better at bringing people along with the changes. See also Scotland.
If tier 1 was too low for an area before the lockdown though, it's still going to be too low now, because the growth in cases would simply resume, even if it's from a somewhat lower level thanks to the lockdown.
Not to mention students returning from universities is likely to create a spike as is the 5 day Xmas party season. I doubt any areas at all will drop a tier until a couple of months after vaccinations start, and think almost everywhere will end up tier 3 (or stricter) by mid January.
Perhaps the govt view is that if the vaccination programme allows most things to resume some time in March, people will be far more willing to accept a final stricter lockdown in January and February than they are to continue this one.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
I don`t think you can leave your area to go to airport in Tier 3, but you can in 1 and 2. That fact, and that ski resorts are being closed, is why I`ve sold my IAG shares this morning.
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
Not to mention keeping open a few businesses which might otherwise go under.
The rules make no sense at all.
That’s why hospitality needs a targeted support package for all venues in Tiers 2 and 3.
The government’s approach is like that of a rescuer who throws a drowning man in a lake a rope to support him then takes the rope away as soon as the man gets nearer to the shore.
I agree with you. I thought the PM's words of sympathy for the hospitality sector during the press conference utterly hypocritical in the absence of any further assistance.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I would agree that virginity tests are appalling and intrusive. Apart from being unreliable and unscientific, these things should be taken on trust.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
Again, marital fidelity and conventional sexual morality (ie pre-60s), are not the same thing at all.
Not the same thing, but not completely different things either.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
Negotiate a Brexit deal with them?
They tried that and the unscrupulous lot reneged on it before it even began!
Yes, that is the problem of negotiating with people who don't follow the rule of Law. I thought Ursula's comments the other day quite revealing. It seems she does not trust Britain's word and wants robust enforcement mechanisms on any deal.
I agree - the problem is that the EU is trapped by culture and history just the same as the rest of the world. The relationship between it and the UK has always been one of mutual suspicion - just remember the struggle to join while De Gaulle ruled France. Not sure there is too much point applying the blame to either side - it is a tension which exists and 4 years ago the strings snapped apart. It saddens me a lot but not at all sure how it is repaired because the bitterness and resentment lies on both sides - less so I believe among ordianry folk than within the learned institutions and politicians on both sides.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I would agree that virginity tests are appalling and intrusive. Apart from being unreliable and unscientific, these things should be taken on trust.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
The importance of sex is vastly overplayed and exaggerated by our biased third class media. It’s a pleasant addition to a stable relationship, can’t see how it is an end in itself. People are told they are bored and need excitement in their lives, try something that doesn’t break up families and produces unwanted kids.
The so-called "permissive society" came about after the advent of the contraceptive pill in 1960. When the risk of procreation was largely removed, the role of sex changed, in some ways as predicted by Aldous Huxley in 1932.
The idea that we can or should go back to the morality of the 1950s, while it may be appealing to a certain kind of conservative, completely fails to acknowledge the new reality that this technology created. Whatever the expressed opinions of leftists in the 1950s, they must be viewed in the context of their times, i.e. before reliable contraception.
While religious conservatives still maintain that sex and procreation are essentially the same thing, that has not been true for 60 years. Teen pregnancies and the social ills associated with them are associated with poor sex education, and good sex education is also opposed by these same religious conservatives. Countries with good sex education, like Sweden, have much lower rates of pregnancy and even of sexual activity, because the information is out there for kids to understand the choices that they are making.
At least the progressive case is not mired in sexual hangups and hypocrisy. The UK and the US have generally poor records because social conservatives continue to sway the debate.
The UK talks about the past so much that it is losing its future.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
Of course you don't have data for the last assertion, but "zero correlation" is about as likely as perfect correlation. I'm surprised - you don't normally shoot from the hip (I think).
Fair comment. Better to say that there is zero rationale for a belief in the importance of the family justifying in any way the invasion of female bodily autonomy.
You are underestimating him severely. This is not a temper tantrum where he is slowly coming to terms with reality.
It is part of a pre-planned multi layered attack on the fundamentals of US democracy that he has put in place well ahead of the election. As the politico articles Nigelb has posted predict, the ramifications will be long lasting, severe, and in his and Trumpisms favour.
Manchester United are being held to RANSOM for millions of pounds by cyberhackers who targeted club computer systems and are demanding cash not to release sensitive data
First we shall lull the enemy into a false sense of complacency...
What would sensitive data be? Salaries, even transfer targets would be known or easily guessed. The club has denied fan data is at risk. It sounds like a good test of their backup policies: can they rebuild to a safe version?
Let's hope they actually tested their backups from time to time. A backup isn't complete until you've verified that you can restore from it!
In most of these cases of encryption attacks, people are paying the ransoms because it's cheaper than re-installing all the servers from scratch. I suspect that the hackers in this case have worked out who they're attacking, and are setting the ransom accordingly.
By January, there will be vacancies for a Director of IT and a Head of Information Security.
Backups aren't really in point, are they? The story isn't that the hackers have corrupted or encrypted the data, just that they have a copy of it.
It's difficult to tell exactly what's affected from reading the reports, but yes, if the attack is sending out data then they've lost already. Pay up or not, the data could end up in the public domain.
It does seem like the immediate affect is limited to office computers though, they were sensible enough to segregate things like the turnstile system and controllers for lighting and irrigation, and the fan database would likely be in a cloud somewhere rather than on site.
Good luck to them, I imagine the rest of the Premier League clubs are taking a very good look at their security right now!
"At least the progressive case is not mired in sexual hangups and hypocrisy. The UK and the US have generally poor records because social conservatives continue to sway the debate."
Ahem - the tension between feminism and the trans issue remains explosive and unresolved. I'm sure that the odd other tensions remain and who can forget left-wing support for PIE not so very long ago...
Manchester United are being held to RANSOM for millions of pounds by cyberhackers who targeted club computer systems and are demanding cash not to release sensitive data
First we shall lull the enemy into a false sense of complacency...
What would sensitive data be? Salaries, even transfer targets would be known or easily guessed. The club has denied fan data is at risk. It sounds like a good test of their backup policies: can they rebuild to a safe version?
Let's hope they actually tested their backups from time to time. A backup isn't complete until you've verified that you can restore from it!
In most of these cases of encryption attacks, people are paying the ransoms because it's cheaper than re-installing all the servers from scratch. I suspect that the hackers in this case have worked out who they're attacking, and are setting the ransom accordingly.
By January, there will be vacancies for a Director of IT and a Head of Information Security.
Backups aren't really in point, are they? The story isn't that the hackers have corrupted or encrypted the data, just that they have a copy of it.
tbh it is not very clear who has control of what data but the point is you want to get back to a state where the goodies have access and the baddies do not, and that can mean going back to a configuration without any malware or access points that the baddies might have installed, and the problem is that the baddies are not going to tell you what they have done, so rebuild and reinstall and/or restore to a known good state.
Then review your configuration, WAFs and so on, and pay for regular penetration tests.
Why does it matter? With WFH many, many firms have gone from allowing no external access to reliance on it, and the change has probably been made in a hurry. I'd expect we'll hear about a lot more of this sort of thing in the months to come.
And look at my 12.15am post at the start of this thread for Boris, HMG and Zoom's security problems (which iirc we even discussed at the time).
You can go to the theatre in Tier 2, but you can't have a drink outside. The whole thing's just perverse. Yes all the restrictions should err on the side of caution rather than laxness. But the application is completely out of line with what we know about the major cause of virus spread. INSIDE, PARTICULARLY IN POORLY VENTILATED AREAS, OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME. Not the only cause of virus spread. But the major cause.
All the restrictions should be geared towards encouraging/or prioritising activities outside of this key risk area. That means giving people the ability to conduct a basic level of social activity (otherwise they will just congregate in private homes where they can go largely undetected), and where those activities can be skewed towards being outside (with incentives for businesses to invest to make that possible).
It seems to be that too much of the discussion about restrictions either ignores the former (there will always be a level of non-compliance) or fails to recognise that not all social activity is the same when it comes to risk of disease spread. There was Johnson yesterday claiming that the new regulations were a major shift because the Government was now "allowing" people to go outside as a matter of right, and not just for "essential" reasons. As if anyone was paying attention to that previously!
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
By standing up for their principles and saying up with this we will not put.
By far the best thing the EU has done is to provide a home and stability for the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe. It played a key role in helping those former dictatorships establish democracies and the rule of law using good examples, loads of cash and clear incentives. Thatcher supported the eastward expansion of the EU for these (and other probably more selfish) reasons. It would be tragic if the current generation of mealy mouthed leaders let that good work be undermined. This is not an opportunity for fudge; it is a time to be clear that these countries can choose to be a part of western democracy or they can go down the same route as Russia under Putin.
Well, if we had Remained in the EU we could have strongly supported that position. But we chose to make it none of our business.
We have walked away from having a positive influence on the political life of our continent. That is the biggest downside of Brexit, apart from loss of free movement, the marginalisation of Britain in the world.
A Eurocrat thinks that the solution to a problem is ever closer Union. Well blow me down with a feather, who could have foreseen such a conclusion?
Blow me down with a feather that you ignited the whole rule of law issue.
Ignited? Ignored?
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
How should the EU deal with nation where the politicians consistently attack judges, underfund the legal system, illegally suspend the parliament which their highest court said had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy?
By standing up for their principles and saying up with this we will not put.
By far the best thing the EU has done is to provide a home and stability for the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe. It played a key role in helping those former dictatorships establish democracies and the rule of law using good examples, loads of cash and clear incentives. Thatcher supported the eastward expansion of the EU for these (and other probably more selfish) reasons. It would be tragic if the current generation of mealy mouthed leaders let that good work be undermined. This is not an opportunity for fudge; it is a time to be clear that these countries can choose to be a part of western democracy or they can go down the same route as Russia under Putin.
Is there not the problem that the EU doesn't actually have a mechanism for expelling nations?
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Conventional (as was) sexual morality and conventional attitudes to family life are far from the same thing, though.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I would agree that virginity tests are appalling and intrusive. Apart from being unreliable and unscientific, these things should be taken on trust.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
The importance of sex is vastly overplayed and exaggerated by our biased third class media. It’s a pleasant addition to a stable relationship, can’t see how it is an end in itself. People are told they are bored and need excitement in their lives, try something that doesn’t break up families and produces unwanted kids.
The so-called "permissive society" came about after the advent of the contraceptive pill in 1960. When the risk of procreation was largely removed, the role of sex changed, in some ways as predicted by Aldous Huxley in 1932.
The idea that we can or should go back to the morality of the 1950s, while it may be appealing to a certain kind of conservative, completely fails to acknowledge the new reality that this technology created. Whatever the expressed opinions of leftists in the 1950s, they must be viewed in the context of their times, i.e. before reliable contraception.
While religious conservatives still maintain that sex and procreation are essentially the same thing, that has not been true for 60 years. Teen pregnancies and the social ills associated with them are associated with poor sex education, and good sex education is also opposed by these same religious conservatives. Countries with good sex education, like Sweden, have much lower rates of pregnancy and even of sexual activity, because the information is out there for kids to understand the choices that they are making.
At least the progressive case is not mired in sexual hangups and hypocrisy. The UK and the US have generally poor records because social conservatives continue to sway the debate.
The UK talks about the past so much that it is losing its future.
Morality was not my main point, rather the obsession with the subject, there is more to life than a quick bonk surely?
What are the seriously material differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3? Other than "pubs and restaurants can open to serve food to people in single households"?
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
Not to mention keeping open a few businesses which might otherwise go under.
The rules make no sense at all.
That’s why hospitality needs a targeted support package for all venues in Tiers 2 and 3.
The government’s approach is like that of a rescuer who throws a drowning man in a lake a rope to support him then takes the rope away as soon as the man gets nearer to the shore.
I agree with you. I thought the PM's words of sympathy for the hospitality sector during the press conference utterly hypocritical in the absence of any further assistance.
It makes the money spent on support thus far pointless and a total waste if he abandons them now - which seems to be the policy. Plus it won’t save any money anyway because bankruptcies, loss of tax revenues and increased unemployment all cost.
Why are there such economic nitwits in government?
Those Tory MPs agitating about the tiers they’ve been put into should concentrate on this aspect. The tiers would be bearable if:-
1. There was a proper support package for the sector affected; and 2. We could have confidence that the vaccination programme will be swiftly and efficiently carried out - ie not run by the likes of Dido, Grayling, a man Hancock met in a pub or some friend of Carrie she’s met at a baby shower.
It looks like we’re not getting 1 - unless there is some serious pressure put on the government. As for 2 I have no confidence at all in this.
Comments
Mr. Urquhart, psychological differences according to sex seems rather, er, obvious.
Men have larger brains than women. But the corpus callosum, the 'highway' connecting the hemispheres, is the same size, meaning the two hemispheres are effectively better connected in women.
On the behavioural front: women talk more than men. About twice as much. Men are more independent, and less likely to ask for help.
It's bizarre that some people think the entirety of human behaviour is learned. That's true for rare instances (first language) but the vast majority of human behaviour is a mix of innate instinct/genetic makeup and the social environment one grows up in.
https://twitter.com/OborneTweets/status/1332222150628024322
And that's before we get onto the difference in musculature (essentially, men have twice the muscle of women due to differing proportions of fat/muscle coupled with slightly larger average size).
But some people have such closed minds that when their ideology conflicts with reality they sooner discard reality than their beliefs. Behold, the joy of fanaticism.
Why should political punters have any useful insight into the state of play of Brexit negotiations? They are as in the dark as the rest of us.
https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1332228946214187008
Momentum. A party within a party. Illegal under the rules. Excommunicate the lot of them. Suffer the electoral pain of having 4 separate Corbynite socialist unity candidates running against you in red wall seats, each picking up 30 votes each. Done.
"Andrew Gwynne, the former Labour frontbencher who represents Denton and Reddish in Greater Manchester, said he was minded not to support the new regime. “I will never understand the logic of a tiering system that says it’s OK for many thousands to cram into a busy shopping centre in the run-up to Christmas, but small numbers from the same household are unable to sit responsibly at a table for a meal and a drink in a bar or restaurant.”"
^this
Personally I'm taking the Wednesday after next off to do my last bits of shopping - I need to get a few odds and ends and the weekends are going to be a mare.
I think that the breakdown of his parents marriage contributed significantly to Prince Harrys mental health issues. These things affect all income levels.
"Good old fashioned poverty" is heavily reinforced by cycles of family breakdown and single parenting. Of course some succeed despite such backgrounds, but the obstacles that they have to clear ar harder and higher. The welfare state does offset some, but not all of this disadvantage. Things are worse in the USA for example.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24947-one-parent-families-us-social-mobilitys-main-barrier/
https://twitter.com/bobscartoons/status/1306647449075961860
Lockdown 1 - March to July
Lockdown 2 - the various restrictions since September, including this last month
Lockdown 3 - starting next week.
For me, it just feels like one lockdown which has gone on since March: house, hills and occasionally Tesco. Oh and Boots for my flu injection and the hospital for more serious stuff. Christ! No wonder I’m depressed.
And there is zero correlation between virginity tests and the nuclear family.
I've been posting that its going to be a grim winter and it is - and we have months more of this to come. As Andrew Gwynne surmised above we're facing down more hypocritical stupidity with the rules. Its a manageable risk to let people go into Teesside shopping centres en masse to buy crap from China, but its far too dangerous for a few of them to have a well managed meal in a restaurant. Bollocks it is.
First we shall lull the enemy into a false sense of complacency...
Some of the rules around pubs make no sense at all. It makes no sense to discourage drinking outside by forcing anyone who wants a drink to have a meal. Given all we know about the virus (spread within poorly ventilated inside areas), people should be being encouraging to conduct as much social activity as possible outside. Al fresco drinking (and dining if necessary) should be seen as a boost to combatting the virus, not an impediment.
And with the obvious economic advantage that it might keep pubs, and all the associated jobs, afloat.
I don't think that it is quite so easy to separate conventional sexual morality and the conventional nuclear family though. Infidelity is a major cause of disintegration of nuclear families.
The EU have a serious problem with Hungary and Poland but the solution is not going to be getting around national vetoes on the budget by using enhanced cooperation mechanisms. The apparent willingness of Merkel in particular to fudge on this issue would be deeply concerning if it still had anything to do with us.
In my view adherence to the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democratic freedoms is a sine qua non of EU membership and these countries should be given an ultimatum that they comply or they will be expelled. Given their financial dependence they would almost certainly comply. But that is not the EU way.
What would sensitive data be? Salaries, even transfer targets would be known or easily guessed. The club has denied fan data is at risk. It sounds like a good test of their backup policies: can they rebuild to a safe version?
Ann Black in last night's video discussion with my CLP (+ some others) raised an interesting point - she suggested that lockdown was both encouraging more people to take part in events as they don't need to go somewhere (certainly true in my CLP) but also sharpening disagreements, because they weren't being softened by routine face-to-face "can you pass the biscuits?" interactions. The NEC sits in alphabetical order for some bizarre reason, so in face-to-face sessions you don't particularly sit with your mates.
A passing comment that she added is that Keir wryly notes that he's been leader for 8 months but has yet to have a meeting in person with any group of people at all.
That’s why hospitality needs a targeted support package for all venues in Tiers 2 and 3.
The government’s approach is like that of a rescuer who throws a drowning man in a lake a rope to support him then takes the rope away as soon as the man gets nearer to the shore.
By far the best thing the EU has done is to provide a home and stability for the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe. It played a key role in helping those former dictatorships establish democracies and the rule of law using good examples, loads of cash and clear incentives. Thatcher supported the eastward expansion of the EU for these (and other probably more selfish) reasons. It would be tragic if the current generation of mealy mouthed leaders let that good work be undermined. This is not an opportunity for fudge; it is a time to be clear that these countries can choose to be a part of western democracy or they can go down the same route as Russia under Putin.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1331614762568970244?s=19
In most of these cases of encryption attacks, people are paying the ransoms because it's cheaper than re-installing all the servers from scratch. I suspect that the hackers in this case have worked out who they're attacking, and are setting the ransom accordingly.
By January, there will be vacancies for a Director of IT and a Head of Information Security.
If tier 1 was too low for an area before the lockdown though, it's still going to be too low now, because the growth in cases would simply resume, even if it's from a somewhat lower level thanks to the lockdown.
'Expulsion' isn't a realistic proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union
Sanctions might have been more likely had we still been a member.
It might even have provided the impetus for a multi tier Europe, which could have suited our half in/half out aspirations.
so Germany the country which is the worst offender in ignoring EU laws thinks everybody else should obey them
https://www.handelsblatt.com/english/politics/papa-dont-preach-germany-is-the-leading-breaker-of-eu-rules/23581000.html?utm_term=0_10959edeb5-6edf4ae607-190082741&utm_campaign=6edf4ae607-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_07&utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_medium=email&ticket=ST-1556580-eatuwCxgi1L76hWqKmby-ap4
Physician heal thyself
Because Boris is Boris, the controls have always been a bit too little, a bit too late. That was true for the Great Lockdown, but also for Tiers 1.0. And people said it at the time.
Now there are those who say that shows an admirable respect for freedom, or respectable caution about the costs, or insight into people's patience. However.
If the controls are too hard or too early, you get to relax them sooner. Better for livelihoods as well as lives. The government also looks in control.
The BoJo approach- tightening until you get control- means you take longer to get control, and you get the confidence-sapping "what was the point of the (insufficient) sacrifice?" vibe.
Bottom line is that limiting social interaction is a tool that works. Expensively, but it works. You can't blame the tool for the fact that BoJo is an incompetent workman.
Perhaps the govt view is that if the vaccination programme allows most things to resume some time in March, people will be far more willing to accept a final stricter lockdown in January and February than they are to continue this one.
I thought the PM's words of sympathy for the hospitality sector during the press conference utterly hypocritical in the absence of any further assistance.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/27/donald-trump-says-he-will-leave-white-house-if-electoral-college-votes-for-joe-biden
The idea that we can or should go back to the morality of the 1950s, while it may be appealing to a certain kind of conservative, completely fails to acknowledge the new reality that this technology created. Whatever the expressed opinions of leftists in the 1950s, they must be viewed in the context of their times, i.e. before reliable contraception.
While religious conservatives still maintain that sex and procreation are essentially the same thing, that has not been true for 60 years. Teen pregnancies and the social ills associated with them are associated with poor sex education, and good sex education is also opposed by these same religious conservatives. Countries with good sex education, like Sweden, have much lower rates of pregnancy and even of sexual activity, because the information is out there for kids to understand the choices that they are making.
At least the progressive case is not mired in sexual hangups and hypocrisy. The UK and the US have generally poor records because social conservatives continue to sway the debate.
The UK talks about the past so much that it is losing its future.
Better to say that there is zero rationale for a belief in the importance of the family justifying in any way the invasion of female bodily autonomy.
It is part of a pre-planned multi layered attack on the fundamentals of US democracy that he has put in place well ahead of the election. As the politico articles Nigelb has posted predict, the ramifications will be long lasting, severe, and in his and Trumpisms favour.
It does seem like the immediate affect is limited to office computers though, they were sensible enough to segregate things like the turnstile system and controllers for lighting and irrigation, and the fan database would likely be in a cloud somewhere rather than on site.
Good luck to them, I imagine the rest of the Premier League clubs are taking a very good look at their security right now!
Ahem - the tension between feminism and the trans issue remains explosive and unresolved. I'm sure that the odd other tensions remain and who can forget left-wing support for PIE not so very long ago...
Then review your configuration, WAFs and so on, and pay for regular penetration tests.
Why does it matter? With WFH many, many firms have gone from allowing no external access to reliance on it, and the change has probably been made in a hurry. I'd expect we'll hear about a lot more of this sort of thing in the months to come.
And look at my 12.15am post at the start of this thread for Boris, HMG and Zoom's security problems (which iirc we even discussed at the time).
All the restrictions should be geared towards encouraging/or prioritising activities outside of this key risk area. That means giving people the ability to conduct a basic level of social activity (otherwise they will just congregate in private homes where they can go largely undetected), and where those activities can be skewed towards being outside (with incentives for businesses to invest to make that possible).
It seems to be that too much of the discussion about restrictions either ignores the former (there will always be a level of non-compliance) or fails to recognise that not all social activity is the same when it comes to risk of disease spread. There was Johnson yesterday claiming that the new regulations were a major shift because the Government was now "allowing" people to go outside as a matter of right, and not just for "essential" reasons. As if anyone was paying attention to that previously!
We have walked away from having a positive influence on the political life of our continent. That is the biggest downside of Brexit, apart from loss of free movement, the marginalisation of Britain in the world.
Why are there such economic nitwits in government?
Those Tory MPs agitating about the tiers they’ve been put into should concentrate on this aspect. The tiers would be bearable if:-
1. There was a proper support package for the sector affected; and
2. We could have confidence that the vaccination programme will be swiftly and efficiently carried out - ie not run by the likes of Dido, Grayling, a man Hancock met in a pub or some friend of Carrie she’s met at a baby shower.
It looks like we’re not getting 1 - unless there is some serious pressure put on the government. As for 2 I have no confidence at all in this.